Edward  C.M.Tower 


Ex  Li'bris 


OLD  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 


OLD  TESTAMENT 
INTRODUCTION 

GENERAL  AND    SPECIAL 


BY 

JOHN  HOWARD  RAVEN,  D.  D. 

Professor  of  Old  Testament  Languages  and  Exegesis, 

Theological   Seminary  of  the   Reformed   Church 

in  America,  at  New  Brunswick,  N.  J. 


New  York        Chicago        Toronto 

Fleming   H.    Revell   Company 

London  and  Edinburgh 


Copyright,  1906,  by 
FLEMING  H.  REVELL  COMPANY 


tOAN  STAC!< 


New  York  :  158  Fifth  Avenue 
Chicago :  80  Wabash  Avenue 
Toronto  :  27  Richmond  Street,  W. 
London  :  21  Paternoster  Square 
Edinburgh  :     100  Princes   Street 


PREFACE 


An-  apology  is  due  to  those  who  read  theological  books 
for  adding  another  to  the  already  long  list  of  volumes 
on  the  Higher  Criticism.  The  apology  is  that  the 
great  majority  of  works  on  this  subject  are  from  the 
negative  standpoint,  while  most  of  the  others  are  too 
brief  to  be  of  much  value,  and  substitute  ridicule  for 
argument.  The  orthodox  theologian  weakens  his  posi- 
tion by  undervaluing  the  force  of  the  radical  arguments. 
He  does  not  commend  himself  to  fair-minded  people 
by  ignoring  or  ridiculing  his  opponents.  The  tradi- 
tional view  of  the  Old  Testament  has  nothing  to  fear 
except  from  the  ignorance  and  the  prejudice  of  its 
adherents. 

The  present  volume  has  arisen  primarily  from  the 
need  of  a  conservative  text-book  which  covers  the  whole 
range  of  the  subject.  The  writer  has  endeavored  to 
avoid  on  the  one  hand  that  over-conciseness  which  leaves 
the  student  in  the  dark  and  on  the  other  that  over-full- 
ness which  leaves  him  in  a  fog.  As  far  as  possible  the 
arguments  of  the  liberals  are  given  in  their  own  words, 
not  only  to  conserve  fairness  but  to  encourage  the 
student  to  read  the  opposite  side  of  the  case.  This  is 
the  cause  of  the  large  number  of  quotations.  The  lists 
of  words,  parallel  passages,  and  other  details  which  are 
necessary  for  the  argument  in  certain  parts  are  intended 
for  reference.  It  is  hoped  that  they  will  open  the  way 
for  individual  research.     The  dates  of  books  are  not 


6  PEEFACE 

meant  to  be  final  or  exact,  but  only  approximate.  The 
bibliography  is  select  rather  than  exhaustive.  Books 
accessible  to  the  average  student  and  minister  are  given 
the  preference.  Only  those  books  in  a  foreign  language 
are  mentioned  which  have  not  been  translated  into 
English  and  which  present  the  most  recent  views. 
Their  number  is  kept  at  the  minimum. 

The  writer  is  firmly  convinced  that  this  battle  must 
be  fought  in  the  open.  The  insidious  nature  of  the 
current  views  of  the  Old  Testament  is  not  realized  by 
many  sincere  Christians  who  espouse  them.  There  is 
no  middle  ground  between  a  thoroughly  naturalistic 
conception  of  the  origin  of  the  Hebrew  scriptures  and 
that  view  of  them  which  is  found  in  the  scriptures 
themselves.  Christ  and  the  Old  Testament  are  so  united 
by  mutual  testimony  that  a  low  view  of  the  credibility 
of  the  latter  must  result  in  a  low  view  of  the  credibility 
of  the  former.  If  this  book  shall  do  a  humble  part  in 
confirming  the  faith  of  any  of  Christ's  ministers  in 
those  ancient  books  which  foretold  and  prepared  for 
the  coming  of  the  Saviour  who  gave  His  precious  blood 
for  us,  the  author's  labors  will  be  abundantly  rewarded. 

New  Beunswick,  N.  J., 

January,  1906. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

PREPARATORY.     Definition   and   History   of   the 

Science       11 

PART    I 

General  Introduction 

I.  The  Canon 17 

II.  The  Text 43 

PART    II 

Special  Introduction 

FIRST  DmSION.       THE  LAW 

PRELIMINARY.     The  Pentateuch  in  General    .     .  85 

I.  Genesis 129 

II.  Exodus 136 

III.  Leviticus         143 

IV.  Numbers 145 

V.  Deuteronomy 147 

second  division,    the  prophets 

Section  1.    The  Former  Prophets 

PRELIMINARY    STATEMENT 149 

I.  Joshua 1^^ 

II.  Judges 1^^ 

III.  Samuel 1^^ 

IV.  Kings         I'^O 

7 


8  CONTENTS 

Section  2.    The  Latter  Prophets 

PAGE 

PRELIMINARY.     Hebrew  Prophecy 177 

I.  Isaiah 185 

II.  Jeremiah        199 

III.  EZEKIEL 204 

IV.  The   Twelve 208 

1.  HosEA 208 

2.  Joel 212 

3.  Amos 217 

4.  OBADL&.H 220 

5.  Jonah 223 

G.  Micah 229 

7.  Nahum 232 

8.  Habakkuk 234 

9.  Zephaniah        23G 

10.  Haggai 239 

11.  Zechariah         241 

12.  Malachi 248 


thibd  division,    kethubim 

Section  1.     Poetical  Books 

PRELIMINARY.    Hebrew  Poetry 251 

I.  Psalms 256 

II.  Proverbs 267 

III.  Job        272 


Section  2.    Megilloth 

I.  Song  of  Solomon 283 

II.  Ruth 292 

III.  Lamentations 296 

IV.  ECCLESIASTES 303 

V.  ESTHEfi 312 


CONTENTS  9 
Section  3,    Historical  Books 

PAGE 

I.  Daniel 32^ 

II.  Ezra — Nehemiah 333 

1-  Ezra 333 

2.  Nehemiah 339 

III.  Chronicles 342 

TABLE  OF  DATES  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT  BOOKS     .  349 

BIBLIOGRAPHY         35I 


PREPARATORY 


DEFINITION  AND  HISTORY  OF  THE   SCIENCE 

I.  Definition.  Old  Testament  Introduction  is  that 
branch  of  Biblical  Introduction  which  relates  to  the  Old 
Testament.  Biblical  Introduction  formerly  was  made 
to  include  all  those  subjects  which  are  introductory  to 
the  study  of  the  Bible — Biblical  Archaeology,  Geography, 
Natural  History,  Hermeneutics,  Apologetics,  and  Criti- 
cism. The  term  is  now  properly  used  only  of  Criticism. 
Thus  Old  Testament  Introduction  is  the  science  which 
relates  to  the  critical  questions  of  the  Old  Testament. 
General  Introduction  considers  the  Old  Testament  as  a 
whole,  and  discusses  (1)  the  canon  in  its  origin,  extent, 
arrangement,  and  preservation;  and  (2)  the  text  in  its 
languages,  manuscripts,  versions  and  critical  editions. 
Special  Introduction  deals  with  the  individual  books, 
considering  their  authorship,  date,  purpose,  and  in- 
tegrity. Introduction  thus  includes  the  Lower  and 
Higher  Criticism  of  which  the  former  strives  to  restore 
the  original  text  of  the  scriptures  by  a  comparison  of 
manuscripts,  versions,  and  quotations,  and  the  latter 
seeks  to  determine  the  genuineness,  integrity,  and 
purpose  of  the  books. 

II.  History.  The  first  to  use  the  name  "  introduc- 
tion'' in  relation  to  the  Bible  was  the  Syrian  monk 
Adrian,  whose  book,  ^^^Eiaaywyr)  ei^  ra?  0sta(^  ypa<pd?''  ap- 
peared about  440  A.D.,  and  was  a  kind  of  Biblical 

11 


12  PEEPAEATOEY 

Elietoric.  About  550  A.D.,  Junilius,  Quaestor  of  the 
Palace  of  Justinian  at  Constantinople,  published  his 
"  Instituta  Eegularia  Divings  Legis,"  of  which  the  first 
part  dealt  with  the  externals  of  the  scriptures — style, 
authorship,  and  arrangement  of  the  books.  Cassiodorius, 
a  Senator  who  died  about  570  A.D.,  was  the  author  of 
a  work  called  "  De  Institutione  Divinarum  Litterarum," 
which  served  as  an  Encyclopedia  of  Theology  for  the 
monks  of  all  then  known  concerning  the  books  of 
scripture.  Practically  nothing  on  this  subject  has  come 
down  to  us  from  the  Middle  Ages  except  isolated 
remarks. 

In  the  period  of  the  Reformation,  a  new  interest  was 
awakened  in  Biblical  studies.  Elias  Levita,  a  Jewish 
scholar  (1474-1549  A.D.),  busied  himself  with  the  text 
and  the  history  of  the  canon.  Two  French  scholars 
maintained  Levita's  liberal  views  concerning  the  late 
origin  of  the  vowel  points — Cappellus,  a  Eeformed 
Theologian, Professor  at  Saumur  (1586-1658  A.D.)  and 
Morinus,  a  Eoman  Catholic  (died  1659  A.D.)-  The 
older  view,  that  the  vowel  points  were  a  part  of  the 
original  text,  was  defended  by  John  Buxtorf  the  younger 
(1599-1664  A.D.).  Brian  Walton,  Bishop  of  Chester, 
discussed  the  philological  phases  of  criticism  in  the 
"Prolegomena  to  the  London  Polyglott"  (1657  A.D.). 

The  modern  Higher  Criticism  may  be  said  to  date 
from  Spinoza  (1633-1677),  a  Pantheistic  philosopher, 
and  Hobbes  (1588-1679),  an  English  Eationalist.  The 
former,  especially,  denied  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch,  considered  the  books  from  Genesis  to  Kings 
to  be  a  late  compilation  possibly  by  Ezra,  brought  the 
Chronicles  to  a  much  later  time,  and  aflBrmed  that  there 
was  no  such  thing  as  a  canon  before  the  time  of  the 


PEEPAEATOEY  13 

Maccabees.    Thus  he  anticipated  by  two  centuries,  the 
conclusions  of  recent  criticism.    Eichard  Simon  (1638- 
1712),  a  Eomish  priest,  opposed  these  views  with  the 
compromising  position  that  the  Hebrew  prophets,  like 
the  official  historians  of  other  Eastern  countries,  recast 
the  history  into  its  present  form  long  after  Moses,  and 
Ezra  and  his  successors  collected  their  works.     This 
theory,  in  turn,  was  combated  by  Clericus  (Le  Clerc, 
1657-1736)    and  Carpzov    (1679-1767),  the  latter  of 
whom  was  the  author  of  the  first  systematic  Introduction 
to  the  Old  Testament   (1721  A.D.).     In  1753  Jean 
Astruc,  a  profligate  French  physician,  promulgated  the 
theory  that  Moses  made  use  in  Genesis  of  older  docu- 
ments characterized  by  the  use  of  different  divine  names. 
This  idea  was   developed  by  Eichhorn,   Professor   at 
Gottingen  and  so-called  "  father  of  the  Higher  Criti- 
cism," whose  learned  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament 
appeared  in  1782.     The  theory  of   Simon  was   also 
developed  by  Semler  the  German  Eationalist   (1725- 
1791). 

In  the  nineteenth  century  De  Wette  (1780-1849)' 
reedited  and  enlarged  the  Introduction  of  Eichhorn, 
while  Ewald  (1803-1875)  introduced  into  the  study  of 
critical  questions  a  feeling  for  the  style  and  development 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  books  of  scripture.  A  revolt  in 
favor  of  the  old  traditional  views  was  led  by  Hengsten- 
berg  (1802-1869)  who  was  followed  by  Havernick  (died 
1845),  Keil  (1807-1888),  and  Kurtz  (1809-1890).^  The 
year  1878  marks  a  new  era  in  the  history  of  criticism, 
for  in  that  year  appeared  Wellhausen's  ^'Prolegomena 
to  the  History  of  Israel,"  which  consistently  applied  to 
the  Old  Testament  from  beginning  to  end,  the  principle 
of  literary  and  historical  development.    This  view  was 


14  PEEPAEATOEY 

advocated  by  Kuenen   (1828-1891)   and  Eeuss   (180-1- 
1891)  and  is  still  dominant. 

In  England  and  America  the  voluminous  "  Introduc- 
tion to  the  Critical  Study  and  Knowledge  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures/^  by  Home,  which  appeared  in  1818,  was 
long  the  standard.  In  the  tenth  edition  of  this  conserva- 
tive work  (1862),  Samuel  Davidson  (1807-1898)  intro- 
duced a  large  element  of  the  German  Eadicalism.  These 
ideas  were  further  popularized  in  England  in  1881  by 
W.  Eobertson  Smith's  (1846-1894)  ''The  Old  Testa- 
ment in  the  Jewish  Church."  At  the  present  time, 
though  no  university  professors  in  Germany  stand  upon 
conservative  ground,  the  extreme  views  of  Duhm  and 
Cornill  are  opposed  by  Konig  and  Strack.  Many 
pastors,  such  as  Eupprecht  and  Zahn  are  thoroughly 
conservative.  In  England  and  America,  although  the 
radical  views  largely  predominate,  not  a  few  scholars, 
and  probably  a  majority  of  the  pastors  adhere  to  the 
conservative  ideas.  The  best-known  English  work  from 
the  standpoint  of  a  moderate  criticism  is  Driver's  Intro- 
duction. These  views  are  opposed  by  G.  C.  M.  Douglas 
of  Glasgow,  Bishop  Ellicott  and  others.  The  chief  de- 
fenders of  the  radical  views  in  America  are  Toy,  Moore, 
Bacon,  Briggs,  and  Harper;  while  they  have  btsen  op- 
posed by  Green,  Osgood,  Davis,  and  others. 


PART  I 

General  Introduction 


THE    CANON 

I.  The  Word  Canon  is  of  Greek  origin,  and  meant 
in  the  classic  authors  "  any  straight  rod  or  bar  especially 
to  keep  a  thing  straight/'  and  metaphorically,  "any- 
thing that  serves  to  determine  other  things,  a  rule,  a 
standard/'  (Liddell  and  Scott's  Greek  Lexicon.)  The 
word  is  found  in  this  metaphorical  sense  in  two  passages 
of  the  New  Testament  (II  Cor.  10: 13-16,  Gal.  6: 16). 
It  was  used  by  the  Alexandrian  grammarians  as  a  name 
for  the  classic  Greek  authors  considered  as  models  or 
standards  of  excellence,  and  in  modern  times  of  the 
authoritative  decisions  of  a  church  council.  In  relation 
to  the  Bible,  it  is  defined  as  "the  books  of  the  Holy 
Scripture  accepted  by  the  Christian  church  as  contain- 
ing an  authoritative  rule  of  religious  faith  and  practice." 
(Century  Dictionary.) 

Though  the  word  was  not  used  in  this  sense  in  Biblical 
times,  the  same  idea  was  attached  to  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament.  The  essential  element  of  the  idea  is  that  of 
authority.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  weakened,  as  Semler 
and  others  attempted,  to  mean  a  list  of  books. 

II.  Evidence  from  Scripture.  The  Old  Testament 
contains  no.  record  of  the  canonization  of  any  book  or 
collection  of  books,  but  everywhere  recognizes  the  books 
as  of  canonical  authority. 

1.  They  were  kept  in  the  temple  and  even  in  the  Holy 
of  Holies.    The  two  tables  of  the  law  were  preserved  in 

17 


18   OLD  TESTAMENT  IXTR0DUCTI0:N' 

the  ark  of  the  covenant  (Ex.  25 :  21 ;  40 :  20 ;  Dent.  10 : 
5;  I  Kings  8:9)  as  the  most  priceless  possession  of 
Israel.  The  book  of  the  law  of  Moses  was  given  in 
charge  of  the  Levites  to  be  kept  by  the  side  of  the  ark 
(Dent.  31:24-26,  E.Y.).  It  was  found  in  the  temple 
in  the  days  of  Josiah  (II  Kings  22 :  8). 

2.  They  were  treated  as  authoritative.  The  law  must 
he  read  in  the  hearing  of  the  people  once  in  seven  years 
(Deut.  30: 10-13).  The  King  was  to  have  a  copy  and 
to  regulate  his  decisions  according  to  the  law  (Deut. 
17:18-20).  Joshua,  the  successor  of  Moses,  was  en- 
joined :  ^^  This  book  of  the  law  shall  not  depart  out  of 
thy  mouth"  (Josh.  1:8).  The  kings  were  judged  ac- 
cording to  obedience  to  the  law  (I  Sam.  15:11-23;  I 
Kings  11:38;  II  Chron.  8:13;  I  Kings  14:7-16;  II 
Kings  14 :  6 ;  18  :  6 ;  21 .  2-16) .  The  people  were  repeat- 
edly urged  to  obey  it  (II  Chron.  14 :  4 ;  17 :  9 ;  II  Kings 
23 :  3,  24-25).  Both  Israel  and  Judah  are  said  to  have 
been  carried  captive  to  Babylon  because  of  disobedience 
to  it  (II  Kings  17:7-23;  18:11-12;  Dan.  9:11-13; 
Neh.  1:7-9).  The  law  was  recognized  immediately  by 
those  who  returned  (Ezra  3:2;  Neh.  8 : 1-8 ;  10 :  28-29 ; 
13:1-3). 

3.  The  deference  to  the  prophets  was  not  less  than 
that  paid  to  the  law.  The  prophets  emphasized  the 
law  (Is.  1: 10)  but  considered  their  own  words  equally 
binding.  Disobedience  to  the  prophets  was  equally 
punishable  (II  Kings  17:13;  Xeh.  9:29-30;  Dan.  9: 
5-6;  Zech.  7:12).  These  prophetic  utterances  were 
perpetuated  in  an  authoritative  set  of  books  to  which 
Daniel  refers  (Dan.  9:2). 

Thus  while  the  Old  Testament  does  not  give  any  in- 
formation concerning  the  formation  of  the  canon  or  its 


THE    CANON  19 

extent,  it  is  explicit,  as  far  as  it  goes,  in  bearing  testi- 
mony to  the  existence  in  very  early  times  of  an  authori- 
tative body  of  books. 

In  this  respect  the  New  Testament  is  in  perfect  accord 
with  the  Old. 

1.  Our  Lord  and  his  apostles  make  frequent  quota- 
tions from  the  Old  Testament  in  proof  of  their  asser- 
tions and  teaching.  Many  things  are  said  to  have 
occurred  in  Christ's  life  "that  the  scripture  might  be 
fulfilled.''  Scripture  is  always  considered  authoritative 
(Matt.  22:29;  Jno.  5:39;  10:35,  etc.)  and  it  is  said 
to  have  been  inspired  of  God  (II  Tim.  3 :  16 ;  Heb.  1:1; 
II  Peter  1:20-21). 

2.  If  it  be  inquired  what  books  were  included  in  the 
term  "scripture,"  the  New  Testament  had  the  same 
canon  of  the  Old  Testament  which  we  possess.  All  the 
books  are  quoted  except  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Esther,  Eccle- 
siastes,  Song  of  Solomon,  Obadiah,  Nahum,  and  Zepha- 
niah.  The  last  three  of  these  books  were  part  of  the 
Minor  Prophets  which  were  counted  as  one  book  by  the 
Jews'.  Allusion  to  other  parts  of  the  book  therefore 
sanctions  the  whole.  The  divisions  of  the  canon  are 
mentioned — the  law  and  the  prophets  (Matt.  5:17; 
7:12;  11:13,  etc.),  as  a  comprehensive  name  for  the 
entire  canon,  and  "  the  law  of  Moses,  the  prophets,  and 
the  Psalms"  (Luke  24:44).  In  the  last  passage  the 
Psalms  does  not  stand  for  the  third  division  as  its  first 
book.  Yet  the  placing  of  one  book  of  the  third  division 
side  by  side  with  the  first  and  second  divisions,  shows 
that  all  books  which  at  the  time  of  Christ  belonged  to 
the  third  division  were  considered  canonical.  And  that 
the  limits  of  the  canon  were  the  same  in  Christ's  time 
as  now,  is  shown  by  our  Lord's  alluding  to  Genesis  and 

] 


20   OLD  TESTAMENT  INTEODUCTION 

Chronicles  as  the  first  and  last  books  of  scripture.  This 
he  does  in  Matt.  23 :  35,  "  That  upon  yon  may  come  all 
the  righteous  blood  shed  upon  the  earth  from  the  blood 
of  righteous  Abel  unto  the  blood  of  Zacharias,  the  son 
of  Barachias,  whom  ye  slew  between  the  temple  and  the 
altar.'^  This  expression  cannot  have  meant  "  from  the 
beginning  to  the  end  of  your  history  "  since  the  murder 
of  Zacharias  occurred  in  the  ninth  century,  B.C.,  far 
from  the  end  of  Israel's  history  (II  Chron.  24:  20-21). 
It  must  mean  "from  the  beginning  of  Genesis  to  the 
end  of  Chronicles "  or  as  we  commonly  say  "  from 
Genesis  to  Malachi."  By  these  words  our  Lord  shows 
that  the  canon  in  his  time  began  with  Genesis  and  ended 
with  Chronicles,  and  that  these  limits  were  fixed  as  in 
our  Hebrew  Bibles  to-day.  Everything  included  between 
these  two  limits  was  considered  authoritative. 

III.  Order  of  Books.  In  the  Hebrew  scriptures,  the 
books  are  arranged  in  three  divisions  according  to  their 
authors. 

1.  The  Law:  Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers, 
Deuteronomy. 

2.  The  Prophets. 

{a)  The  Former  Prophets:  Joshua,  Judges,  Sam- 
uel, Kings. 

(&)  The  Latter  Prophets:  Isaiah,  Jeremiah, 
Ezekiel,  the  Twelve. 

3.  The  Kethubim. 

(a)  The  Poetical  Books:   Psalms,  Proverbs,  Job. 
(6)  The  Megilloth:     Song,   Euth,   Lamentations, 

Ecclesiastes,  Esther. 
(c  )  Non-Prophetic  Historical  Books :  Daniel,  Ezra, 

Nehemiah,  Chronicles. 


THE    CANON  21 

In  the  Septuagint,  Yulgate,  and  modern  versions,  the 
books  are  arranged  according  to  their  subject  matter : 

1.  The  Law:  Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers, 
Deuteronomy. 

2.  The  Historical  Books:  Joshua,  Judges,  Ruth,  I 
and  II  Samuel,  I  and  II  Kings,  I  and  II  Chronicles, 
Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Esther. 

3.  The  Poetical  Books :  Job,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Eccle- 
siastes.  Song  of  Solomon. 

4.  The  Prophetical  Books:  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  La- 
mentations, Ezekiel,  Daniel,  and  the  twelve  Minor 
Prophets. 

IV.     Critical  Theory.     These  three  divisions  are  con- 
sidered by  the  critics  to  indicate  three  successive  collec- 
tions of  the  canon.     The  dates  and  authorship  of  the 
various  books   are  made  to   control  the  view  of  the 
formation  of  the  canon.    Moses  did  not  write  the  Pen- 
tateuch.   A  moderate  position  in  this  respect  is  that  of 
Eyle  who  says :  "  Just  as  in  Deut.  31 :  9-24  Moses  him- 
self is  said  to  have  committed  to  writing  the  law,  which 
formed  the  nucleus  of  the  Deuteronomic  legislation,  so 
we  understand  the  legislation  which  was  initiated  by 
Moses  to  have  become  expanded  into  the  complex  system 
of  laws  included  in  the  Pentateuch.    The  great  Lawgiver 
who  was  the  founder  became  also  the  personification  of 
Hebrew  legislation,  as  David  was  of  the  poetry  and 
Solomon  of  the  Wisdom  of  Israel"  (Canon  of  the  Old 
Testament,  p.  31).    The  first  canon  was  the  book  which 
was  discovered  in  the  temple  in  621  B.C.    This  is  said 
to  have  been  Deuteronomy  and  to  have  become  canonical 
by  the  acceptance  of  the  people  (II  Kings  23  : 1-2) .    Ac- 
cording to  some  critics,  Leviticus  was  composed  before 
the  Exile,  while  others  maintained  that  during  the  Exile 


22   OLD  TESTAMENT  INTKODUCTION 

Israel  committed  to  writing  the  priestly  legislation  and 
the  remainder  of  the  Pentateuch  in  order  to  perpetuate 
the  institutions  and  history  of  the  nation.  These 
portions  likewise  became  canonical  when  the  people 
heard  and  accepted  them  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles 
(Neh.  8). 

The  books  of  the  Prophets  underwent  a  period  of 
private  circulation  during  which  their  religious  value 
was  tested.  Their  canonization  was  the  work  of  the 
scribes  and  was  a  gradual  process.  Buhl  considers  300 
B.C.  the  date  of  closing  the  canon  of  the  Prophets,  while 
Wildeboer  and  others  suggest  200  B.C. 

Some  of  the  books  of  the  Kethubim  are  thought  to 
have  been  in  existence  when  the  canon  of  the  Prophets 
was  closed  but  several  of  them  are  assigned  to  a  later 
time.  Daniel  and  several  Psalms  are  said  to  be  from 
the  Maccabean  age  (B.C.  170  and  later).  The  critics 
differ  concerning  the  date  of  the  final  closing  of  this 
third  division.  Buhl  and  Eyle  believe  that  the  entire 
canon  was  closed  before  the  time  of  Christ.  Wildeboer, 
although  he  admits  that  the  third  division  was  substan- 
tially as  at  present,  asserts  that  the  whole  canon  was 
not  definitely  settled  until  about  200  A.D.  by  the  Mishna. 
Others  give  the  date  of  the  Council  of  Jabne  or  Jammia 
(A.D.  90,  108). 

The  arguments  of  the  critics  for  their  theory  of  the 
canon  are  thus  summarized  by  Green:  (General  Intro- 
duction.   The  Canon  pp.  23-25.) 

1.  Several  books  were  not  in  existence  in  the  time  of 
Ezra  (Eccl.,  Esther,  Dan.,  Chron.,  and  several  Psalms). 
This  question  will  be  discussed  under  Special  Intro- 
duction. 

2.  The  three  divisions  indicate  three  stages  of  col- 


THE    CANON-  23 

lection.  If  the  books  of  the  second  and  third  divisions 
had  been  arranged  at  the  same  time,  Ezra,  Nehemiah 
and  Chronicles  would  have  been  classified  with  Samuel 
and  Kings,  while  Daniel  would  stand  among  the  Latter 
Prophets.  The  fact  that  they  are  in  the  third  division 
is  said  to  prove  that  only  that  division  remained  open 
at  the  time  they  were  produced. 

3.  The  Samaritans  receive  only  the  Pentateuch. 
Hence  it  is  argued  that  the  other  books  could  not  have 
been  in  existence  and  canonical  when  the  Samaritans 
received  the  Pentateuch  from  the  Jews. 

4.  The  synagogue  lessons  were  at  first  taken  exclu- 
sively from  the  Law.  Sections  of  the  Prophets  were 
added  later  while  the  Kethubim  were  read  only  on  special 
occasions  and  in  small  sections. 

5.  The  use  of  the  terms  "  The  Law"  and  "  The  Law 
and  the  Prophets'^  for  the  entire  Old  Testament  is 
thought  to  be  a  reminiscence  of  the  time  when  the  first 
and  then  the  first  two  divisions  comprised  the  entire 
canon. 

6.  Certain  points  in  the  order  of  the  books  of  the 
Prophets  and  Kethubim  favor,  it  is  said,  a  gradual 
formation. 

7.  The  disputes  of  the  Jews  concerning  certain  books 
of  the  Kethubim  show  that  the  canon  was  not  fixed. 

V.  The  Test  of  Canonicity.  The  critics  differ 
widely  concerning  the  principle  according  to  which 
some  books  were  received  into  the  canon  and  others 
excluded. 

1.  Eichhorn  considered  age  the  test. 

Answer. — The  historical  books  refer  to  "the  Book  of 
the  Wars  of  Jehovah  "  and  "  the  Book  of  Jashar."  Yet 
these  older  books  were  excluded  from  the  canon. 


24       OLD    TESTAMENT    IXTEODUCTIOIN" 

2.  Hitzig  and  others  made  the  Hebrew  language  the 
test  of  canonicity. 

Answer. — Ecclesiastiens,  Tobit  and  I  Maccabees  were 
originally  written  in  Hebrew  but  excluded  from  the 
canon. 

3.  Wildeboer  makes  conformity  to  the  law  the  test  of 
canonicity  for  the  later  books.  He  says,  "  The  question 
whether  a  book  is  canonical  or  not  from  the  Jewish 
point  of  view  amounts  to  this:  Does  it  agree  with  the 
revelation,  that  is,  with  the  Tora  or  not? "  (Origin  of 
the  Canon,  p.  97.)  Yet  later  he  introduces  several  other 
tests  for  the  Kethubim.  "  There  were  admitted  into  it 
only  books  written  in  Hebrew  or  Aramaic,  which  treated 
of  the  ancient  history  (Euth,  Chron.)  or  gave  informa- 
tion about  the  establishment  of  the  new  order  of  things 
(Ezra,  Neh.)  or  which  were  supposed  to  have  been 
written  by  some  famous  person  of  ancient  times  (Prov., 
EccL,  Song,  Sam.,  Dan.,  perhaps  Job  also),  while  Esther 
obtained  admission  after  much  controversy  (as  was  the 
case  with  Eccl.)  because  it  was  in  complete  harmony 
with  the  national  sentiment  of  people  and  scribes  alike  ^' 
(p.  139). 

Answer. — This  is  pure  theorizing  with  no  historical 
evidence.  Though  undoubtedly  no  book  was  received 
into  the  canon  which  was  opposed  to  the  Pentateuch, 
certainly  the  Old  Testament  does  not  include  all  the 
books  in  agreement  with  it.  It  is  incredible  that  several 
different  tests  should  have  been  applied  in  the  way 
suggested. 

4.  The  more  common  view  is  that  the  books  were 
tested  by  their  religious  use  privately  for  a  short- 
er or  longer  period  before  they  were  admitted  to  the 


THE    CANON  25 

Answer. — This  plausible  theory  does  not  go  to  the  root 
of  the  matter.  The  question  remains:  why  were  cer- 
tain books  edifying  and  others  not?  Canonicity  must 
have  been  a  quality  of  the  books  from  tlie  first. 

All  these  theories  are  at  fault  in  considering  tlic 
canonization  of  the  Old  Testament  books  as  the  work 
of  the  people.  Canonical  authority  and  the  recognition 
of  it  are  two  distinct  things.  That  the  decision  of  tlie 
people  was  not  the  cause  of  canonicity  is  proven  by  three 
considerations. 

1.  Authority  in  those  times  was  not  conceived  of  as 
coming  from  the  people  but  from  God.  This  critical 
theory  would  force  into  ancient  times  the  principles  of 
modern  civilization.  The  books  must  have  possessed 
canonical  authority  before  they  were  recognized  by 
Israel,  or  Israel  would  not  have  recognized  them.  Their 
recognition  was  the  effect  and  not  the  cause  of  their 
canonicity.  They  were  canonical  because  divinely  in- 
spired, and  possessed  divine  authority  from  their  first 
promulgation. 

2.  The  two  accounts  of  so-called  canonization  are  not 
really  such.  The  so-called  canonization  of  the  book  of 
Deuteronomy  in  the  time  of  Josiah  is  not  canonization 
at  all.  The  book  was  recognized  as  already  authoritative 
by  all  who  read  it.  Hilkiah  said  to  Shaphan:  "  I  have 
found  the  book  of  the  law  in  the  house  of  the  Lord" 
(II  Kings  22:8)— evidently  an  authoritative  book  of 
which  he  had  heard  but  which  had  been  lost.  Shaphan 
read  the  book  before  Josiah  the  King.  The  king  imme- 
diately rent  his  clothes  and  commanded  that  inquiry  be 
made  of  the  Lord  concerning  the  words  of  the  book 
saying-  "  Great  is  the  wrath  of  the  Lord  that  is  kmdied 
against  us,  because  our  fathers  have  not  harkened  unto 


26   OLD  TESTAMENT  INTEODUCTION 

the  words  of  this  book,  to  do  according  unto  all  that 
which  is  written  concerning  us"  (verse  13).  Josiah 
gathered  the  people  together  and  read  the  book  to  them 
(II  Kings  23:1-2).  The  whole  impression  of  this 
account  is  of  a  book  already  canonical,  rather  than  of 
the  canonization  of  the  book. 

Likewise  the  record  of  Xehemiah  8  is  not  that  of  the 
canonization  of  a  book.  Ezra  evidently  considered  the 
book  as  already  canonical,  or  he  would  not  have  taken 
such  pains  to  read  it  at  the  solemn  assembly  of  the 
people.  The  people  had  the  same  idea  of  it  for  they 
asked  Ezra  to  read  it  (Neh.  8:1-3),  "and  when  he 
opened  it,  all  the  people  stood  up  "  (verse  5)  as  an  evi- 
dence of  this  authority.  The  reading  was  for  the  in- 
struction of  the  people.  Their  acceptance  added  no 
authority  to  the  book  either  for  them  or  for  their 
descendants,  but  was  the  recognition  of  previously 
existing  authority. 

3.  There  is  no  record  in  the  Old  Testament  of  the 
formal  acceptance  by  the  people  of  any  of  the  books  of 
the  second  and  third  divisions  of  the  canon.  Yet  these 
books  were  evidently  considered  canonical.  It  is  a  pure 
assumj^tion  that  their  canonization  was  the  work  of  the 
scribes.  If  either  the  acceptance  of  the  people  or  the 
official  imprimatur  of  the  scribes  made  books  canonical, 
the  recording  of  that  act  of  canonization  would  be  an 
important  part  of  each  book,  or  at  least  of  each  division 
of  the  canon.  Yet  no  such  record  exists.  The  explana- 
tion is  obvious  that  the  books  were  recognized  as  canon- 
ical from  the  first.  The  very  contents  of  the  books  show 
that  the  prophets  spoke  with  authority.  If  therefore 
their  spoken  words  were  divinely  authoritative,  why  not 
their  written  words? 


THE    CANON  27 

YI.    External  Evidence. 

1.  From  Jeiuisli  Sources.— The  author  of  the  prologue 
to  the  book  of  EccUsiasticus  (about  130  B.  C.)  says: 
"  Whereas  many  and  great  things  have  been  delivered 
to  us  by  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  and  by  others  that 
have  followed  their  steps— my  grandfather  Jesus  when 
he  had  much  given  himself  to  the  reading  of  the  Law 
and  the  Prophets  and  other  books  of  our  fathers  and 
had  gotten  therein  good  judgment,  was  drara  on  also 
himself  to  write  something  pertaining  to  learning  and 
wisdom/'    If  we  make  a  due  allowance  for  the  difference 
between  the  date  of  the  prologue  and  the  date  of  the 
book,  this  passage  shows  that  not  later  than  170  B.C. 
the  Old  Testament  canon  was  divided  into  the  same  three 
divisions  found  in  the  Hebrew  scriptures  to-day. 

The  testimony  of  Joseplius  who  was  born  at  Jerusa- 
lem AD  37  is  much  more  explicit.    In  his  work  agamst 
Apion  he  says:    "We  have  not  tens  of  thousands  of 
books,  discordant  and  conflicting,  but  only  twenty- 
two  containing  the  record  of  all  time,  which  have  been 
iustly  believed  to  be  divine.    And  of  these  five  are  the 
books  of  Moses,  which  embrace  the  laws  and  the  tradi- 
tion from  the  creation  of  man  until  his  death.-From 
the  death  of  Moses  to  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes,  the  suc- 
cessor of   Xerxes,  king   of  Persia,  the  prophets  who 
succeeded  Moses  wrote  what  was  done  in  thirteen  books 
The  remaining  four  books  embrace  hymns  to  God  and 
counsels  for  men  for  the  conduct  of  life.    Prom  Artax- 
erxes  until  our  time  everything  has  been  recorded  but 
has  not  been  deemed  worthy  of  like  credit  with  what 
preceded,  because  the  exact  succession  of  the  prophets 
ceased     But  what  faith  we  have  placed  in  our  own  writ- 
ings is  evident  by  our  conduct :  for  though  so  long  a  time 


28   OLD  TESTAMENT  INTEODUCTION 

has  now  passed,  no  one  has  dared  either  to  add  anything 
to  them,  or  to  take  anything  from  them,  or  to  alter 
anything  in  them.  But  it  is  instinctive  in  all  Jews  at 
once  from  their  very  birth  to  regard  them  as  commands 
of  God,  and  to  abide  by  them  and,  if  need  be,  willingly 
to  die  for  them."  This  testimony  bears  on  three  points : 
the  authority,  extent,  and  date  of  the  completion 
of  the  Old  Testament.  Concerning  the  authority  no 
further  comment  is  necessary.  The  twenty-two  books 
mentioned  indicate  the  extent  of  the  canon.  They  are 
probably, 

1.  Genesis  12.  Ezekiel 

2.  Exodus  13.  The    Twelve    Minor 

3.  Leviticus  Prophets 

4.  Numbers  14.  Psalms 

5.  Deuteronomy  15.  Proverbs 

6.  Joshua  16.  Job 

7.  Judges  (with  Euth)       17.  Song  of  Solomon 

8.  Samuel  18.  Ecclesiastes 

9.  Kings  19.  Esther 

10.  Isaiah  20.  Daniel 

11.  Jeremiah  (with  Lam-     21.  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 

entations)  22.  Chronicles 

This  enumeration  is  made  from  the  statements  of 
Josephus  himself  and  from  the  known  classifications  of 
other  ancient  writers.  The  five  books  of  Moses  are 
sufficiently  identified.  The  four  books  which  ^^  embrace 
hymns  to  God  and  counsels  for  men  for  the  conduct  of 
life"  are  probably  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes  and 
Song  of  Solomon.  It  is  known  from  Origen  and  others 
that  Ruth  was   sometimes   counted  with  Judges   and 


THE    CAXO^  29 

Lamentations  with  Jeremiah.    If  so  the  thirteen  books 
of  the  prophets  who  succeeded  Moses  would  be : 

1.  Joshua  8.  Job 

2.  Judges  (with  Ruth)  9.  Isaiah 

3.  Samuel  10.  Jeremiah  (with  Lam- 

4.  Kings  entations) 

5.  Chronicles  11.  Ezekiel 

6.  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  12.  Daniel 

7.  Esther  13.  The  Minor  Prophets 

This  arrangement  is  peculiar  to  Josephus  but  suited  his 
purpose,  which  concerned  chiefly  the  reliability  of  the 
historical  books.  Hence  all  books  containing  an  element 
of  history  were  classed  by  themselves.  Thus  the  canon 
of  Josephus  included  all  the  books  we  possess  and  no 
others.  This  fact  is  further  confirmed  by  his  quoting 
all  of  those  books  as  authoritative,  except  Job,  Proverbs, 
Ecclesiastes,  and  Song  of  Solomon,  none  of  which 
contained  material  for  his  history. 

The  testimony  of  Josephus  to  the  time  of  the  comple- 
tion of  the  canon  is  most  explicit—"  the  reign  of  Artax- 
erxes,  the  son  of  Xerxes,  king  of  Persia."  This  was 
Artaxerxes  Longimanus  who  reigned  465-425  B.C.  In 
his  seventh  year  (458  B.C.)  Ezra  went  up  to  Jerusalem 
(Ezra  7:1-8)  and  in  his  twentieth  year  (445  B.C.) 
Nehemiah  followed  him  (Neh,  2:1-6).  It  does  not 
invalidate  the  testimony  of  Josephus  that  he  identified 
the  Artaxerxes  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  with  Xerxes,  and 
the  Ahasuerus  of  Esther  with  Artaxerxes— the  exact 
reverse  of  the  fact.  For  in  any  case  the  canon  is  said 
to  have  been  complete  in  the  reign  of  the  latter  monarch. 
The  statement  of  Josephus  was  made  as  the  current 
opinion  of  his  people.    He  was  a  man  of  great  learning 


30   OLD  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

for  his  time,  and  would  certainly  make  no  unguarded 
assertions  in  a  controversy  with  such  a  scholar  as  Apion. 
His  testimony  therefore  is  worthy  of  the  utmost 
confidence. 

The  statement  of  the  Talmud  is  valuahle  because  it 
mentions  the  books  in  detail.  "  Moses  wrote  his  own 
book  and  the  section  concerning  Balaam  and  Job. 
Joshua  wrote  his  0"syn  book  and  eight  verses  of  the  Law. 
Samuel  wrote  his  own  book  and  Judges  and  Euth. 
David  wrote  the  book  of  Psalms  at  the  direction  of 
(^^.■•^V)  ten  elders,  Adam,  Melchizedek,  Abraham, 
Moses,  Heman,  Jeduthun,  Asaph  and  the  three  sons  of 
Korah.  Jeremiah  wrote  his  own  book  and  the  Book  of 
Kings  and  Lamentations.  Hezekiah  and  his  college 
wrote  Isaiah,  Proverbs,  the  Song  of  Songs  and  Koheleth. 
The  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue  wrote  Ezekiel,  the 
Twelve  [Minor  Prophets]  Daniel  and  Esther.  Ezra 
wrote  his  own  book  and  the  genealogies  of  the  Book  of 
Chronicles  as  far  as  himself.^*  While  all  these  views 
concerning  authorship  may  not  be  accepted,  the  passage 
implies  agreement  concerning  the  extent  of  the  canon 
and  includes  precisely  the  books  in  our  Hebrew  Bibles. 

Two  of  the  critical  objections  bear  upon  this  point — 
viz.  that  from  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  and  that  from 
the  synagogue  lessons.  Whatever  be  the  date  of  the 
Samaritan  Pentateuch,  it  does  not  prove  that  the  Jews 
possessed  no  other  canonical  books  at  the  time  the 
Samaritans  took  the  books  of  Moses  from  them.  The 
Samaritans  refused  to  take  the  other  books  because 
those  books  sanctioned  the  worship  at  Shiloh  and  Jeru- 
salem instead  of  Mt.  Gerizim.  Therefore  the  Samaritans 
also  altered  the  text  of  the  Pentateuch  to  give  greater 
reverence  to  their  holy  mountain.    The  synagogue  read- 


THE    CiVNOlSl  31 

ings  give  no  information  concerning  the  date  of  the 
canonization  of  the  Prophets.  Wildebocr  admits  that 
as  early  as  the  Maccabees  it  was  customary  to  read  a  sec- 
tion of  the  Prophets  with  the  section  of  the  Law.  In 
the  time  of  Christ  the  same  was  the  case  though  the 
readings  in  use  were  different  from  those  in  our  Hebrew 
Bibles  (Luke  4:16-19;  Acts  13:14-15).  Thus  as  far 
back  as  our  knowledge  goes  we  find  the  Prophets  read 
with  the  Law.  If  there  were  a  time  when  the  Law  only 
was  read,  it  would  only  prove  that  the  Eabbins  did  not 
consider  the  other  books  adapted  to  public  reading,  not 
that  originally  only  the  Pentateuch  was  canonical. 

2.  From  Christian  Sources. — The  Christians  received 
their  canon  from  the  Jews.  This  process  is  well  de- 
scribed by  Eeuss :  ^^  Those  of  the  believers  who  belonged 
to  the  Jewish  nation  did  not  cease  to  frequent  the  syna- 
gogue— to  them  the  public  reading  of  the  sacred  books 
continued  therefore  to  be  a  familiar  practice.  They 
soon  introduced  into  their  own  special  meetings,  even 
before  their  final  separation,  the  same  means  of  edifica- 
tion as  were  used  in  the  Jewish  religious  gatherings; 
and  later,  when  the  schism  was  complete,  these  means 
were  preserved  and  bequeathed  to  succeeding  genera- 
tions" (p.  4). 

Eusebius  has  preservel  the  catalogue  of  books  of 
Melito,  Bishop  of  Sardis  (died  after  171  A.D.)  who 
went  to  the  East  to  investigate  the  number  and  order  of 
the  books :  "  Five  of  Moses— Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus, 
Numbers,  Deuteronomy;  Joshua,  Judges,  Euth,  four  of 
Kingdoms,  two  of  Chronicles,  Psalms  of  David,  Prov- 
erbs of  Solomon,  which  is  also  Wisdom,  Ecclesiastes, 
Song  of  Songs,  Job;  the  Prophets— Isaiah,  Jeremiah, 
the  Twelve  in  one  Book,  Daniel,  Ezekiel,  Ezra.''  In  this 


32   OLD  TESTAMENT  INTEODUCTION" 

list  as  in  the  enumeration  of  Josephns  and  Jerome, 
Lamentations  was  probably  inelnded  with  Jeremiah  and 
Nehemiah  with  Ezra.  The  omission  of  Esther  may  have 
been  due  to  the  objections  which  certain  Jews  raised 
against  it.  If  so  Melito  was  not  in  harmony  with  the 
traditional  view  either  among  Jews  or  Christians. 

Justin  Martyr  (died  164  A.D.)  was  born  in  Palestine 
and  lived  for  a  long  time  in  Eome.  He  therefore  had 
peculiar  opportunities  of  knowing  both  the  Jewish  and 
Christian  canon  of  the  Old  Testament.  He  quotes 
freely  from  the  canonical  books  but  never  from  the 
Apocrypha. 

Origen  (died  at  Tyre  254  A.D.)  counted  22  canonical 
books  and  gave  a  list  of  them  which  also  is  quoted  by 
Eusebius.  It  omits  the  Minor  Prophets.  This  omission 
however  cannot  have  been  intentional  for  it  would 
leave  the  number  of  books  21.  It  was  due  either  to 
inadvertence  on  the  part  of  Origen  or  Eusebius,  or  else 
our  text  of  Eusebius  is  corrupt. 

Tertullian  (died  about  230  A.D.)  says  that  there  are 
24  canonical  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  This  number 
was  probably  made  by  counting  Euth  and  Lamentations 
separately.  The  testimony  of  Christian  writers  in  the 
fourth  century  and  later  is  too  voluminous  to  mention. 

Thus  the  evidence  from  Jewish  and  Christian  sources 
is  all  in  favor  of  the  canon  as  we  have  it.  Ellas  Levita 
a  Jewish  Eabbi  in  his  work  Masoreth  Hammasoreth, 
completed  A.D.  1538,  expressed  the  opinion  that  the 
final  collection  of  the  Old  Testament  canon  was  com- 
pleted by  Ezra  and  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue. 
A  similar  view  was  held  by  David  Kimchi  (1160-1232). 
Though  such  a  theory  cannot  be  firmly  established,  there 
are  three  facts  which  make  it  possible  if  not  probable. 


THE    CANON  33 

(a)  The  testimony  of  Josephus  that  the  canon  was 
completed  in  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus  in  the 
life-time  of  Ezra. 

(h)  Ezra  was  especially  concerned  with  the  sacred 
books.  He  is  called  "  the  scribe  "  (Neh.  8 : 1,  4,  9,  13 ; 
12:  26,  36),  "a  ready  scribe  in  the  law  of  Moses" 
(Ezra  7:6)  and  "  a  scribe  of  the  words  of  the  command- 
ments of  Jehovah,  and  of  his  statutes  to  Israel "  (Ezra 
7:11). 

(c)  The  character  of  Ezra's  time  was  such  that  the 
collection  of  the  sacred  books  may  appropriately  have 
been  made  in  it.  After  the  Exile  the  people  were  found- 
ing anew  the  religious  institutions  of  the  nation.  What 
could  be  more  natural  than  to  gather  the  volumes  of 
the  sacred  library?  There  was  a  feeling  that  prophecy 
was  about  to  cease  (Zech.  13:2-5;  Mai.  4:5).  No 
other  period  of  Israel's  history  was  so  appropriate  for 
the  closing  of  the  canon. 

If  not  by  Ezra  at  least  in  his  time  and  not  much  later 
than  400  B.C.  the  Old  Testament  canon  was  closed. 

VII.  The  Antilegomena.  The  Mishna  (about  200 
A.D.)  speaks  of  strong  controversies  concerning  the 
Song  of  Solomon,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Esther  in  the  second 
century  A.D.  and  the  Gemara  alludes  to  objections  to 
Ezekiel  which  were  settled  by  66  A.D.  Proverbs  was 
also  under  discussion  among  the  Jews  in  the  second 
century.  The  objection  to  the  Song  of  Solomon  was 
that  it  seemed  to  be  a  poem  of  merely  human  love,  to 
Ecclesiastes  that  it  tended  toward  Atheism,  and  to 
Esther  that  it  did  not  mention  the  name  of  God.  These 
three  according  to  Wildeboer  are  the  only  Old  Testament 
Antilegomena,  for  he  considers  the  objections  to  Ezekiel 
of  a  less  serious  nature.    It  was  that  it  contradicts  cer- 


34   OLD  TESTAMEXT  IXTEODUCTIOX 

tain  requirements  of  the  Mosaic  Law.  The  objection  to 
Proverbs  was  that  certain  of  its  maxims  contradict  each 
other. 

In  the  first  century  the  disciples  of  Hillel  main- 
tained the  canonicity  of  Ecclesiastes  while  those  of 
Shammai  opposed  it.  The  canonicitv^  of  Ecclesiastes 
and  the  Song  of  Solomon  was  settled  by  the  Council  of 
Jamnia  (A.D.  90).  Yet  the  discussion  continued  in  the 
second  century  until  the  Mishna  again  affirmed  these 
books  canonical.  Even  in  the  third  century  Esther  was 
spoken  against. 

These  facts  do  not  prove  that  the  canon  of  the  Old 
Testament  was  unsettled  until  200  A.D.  as  the  critics 
affirm.  Buhl  admits :  "  Such  attacks  upon  biblical 
books  do  not  exclude  the  idea  of  an  earlier  established 
canon,  for  indeed  criticism  of  the  several  writings  of  the 
Old  Testament  was  never  altogether  silenced  after  the 
S)Tiod  of  Jamnia  nor  even  after  the  decision  given  in 
the  Mishna.  Further,  the  very  attacks  referred  to  pre- 
suppose a  Scripture  Canon"  (p.  26).  The  objections 
to  these  books  were  an  attempt  to  remove  them  from  the 
canon.  And  on  the  other  hand,  the  breaking  out  of 
the  discussion  after  the  decision  of  the  Synod  and  after 
the  affirmation  of  the  Mishna  proves  that  the  books  were 
not  canonized  by  the  authorit}'  of  S}Tiod  or  Mishna.  If 
the  critical  view  of  canonicity  be  correct  these  books  are 
not  canonical  to  this  day.  Luther  thought  that  Esther 
should  be  excluded  from  the  canon  and  I  Maccabees 
included  in  it.  Xo  one  on  that  account  doubts  the 
limits  of  the  Protestant  canon.  In  like  manner  these 
objections  do  not  indicate  any  uncertainty  in  our  Lord's 
time  and  later  concerning  the  limits  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment.   The  books  of  Esther,  Ecclesiastes,  and  the  Song 


THE    CANON  35 

of  Solomon  are  not  quoted  in  the  New  Testament  simply 
because  the  New  Testament  writers  had  no  occasion  to 
quote  them,  as  was  also  the  case  with  Ezra,  Nehemiah, 
and  three  of  the  Minor  Prophets. 

VIII.  The  Apocrypha.  In  addition  to  the  books  of 
the  Hebrew  canon  the  Septuagint  includes  the  following : 
I  Esdras,  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  the  Wisdom  of  Jesus 
the  Son  of  Sirach  or  Ecclesiasticus,  Judith,  Tobit, 
Baruch,  the  Epistle  of  Jeremias,  I,  II,  III,  and  IV 
Maccabees  and  certain  additions  to  Esther,  Daniel,  and 
Psalms.  These  additions  are  said  by  modern  critics  to 
indicate  a  broader  view  of  the  canon  among  the  Alex- 
andrian Jews  from  that  which  obtained  in  Palestine. 
Jerome,  the  translator  of  the  Vulgate,  considered  the 
Apocrypha  of  inferior  value  to  the  canonical  books,  but 
he  was  persuaded  to  translate  Tobit  and  Judith  and  to 
incorporate  from  the  Itala  also.  Wisdom,  Sirach,  Baruch, 
I  and  II  Maccabees  and  the  additions  to  Daniel  and 
Esther.  Augustine,  however,  persuaded  the  African 
Church  to  canonize  these  books.  At  the  Eeformation 
the  Protestants  maintained  the  stricter  opinion  of 
Jerome.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  on  the  other 
hand  at  the  Council  of  Trent  (A.D.  1546)  affirmed  the 
equal  canonical  authority  of  all  the  books  of  the  Vulgate. 
The  Greek  Church  took  the  same  course  at  the  Council 
of  Jerusalem  (x\.D.  1672).  Luther  included  the 
Apocrypha  in  his  translation  but  with  the  preface: 
"  These  are  books  not  to  be  held  in  equal  esteem  with 
holy  scripture  but  yet  good  and  useful  for  reading.'' 
The  influence  of  Calvin  was  against  the  Apocrypha. 
In  England  however  they  were  not  excluded  from  the 
editions  of  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  until 
1825  after  a  sharp  controversy. 


36   OLD  TESTAMEXT  IXTEODUCTIOX 

There  are  three  principal  arguments  in  defense  of  the 
Apocrypha,  as  stated  by  Green  (p.  181). 

"  1.  The  Apocrj^ha  were  included  in  the  early  ver- 
sions of  the  scriptures. 

"  2.  They  were  read  in  the  churches  in  public  worship. 

"  3.  They  were  quoted  by  the  fathers  as  divinely 
authoritative." 

Concerning  the  first  of  these  arguments  we  reply : 

I.  Of  the  four  great  ancient  versions,  the  Syriac 
Peshitta  did  not  include  them  and  Jerome  did  not  con- 
sider them  canonical.  Their  inclusion  in  the  Septuagint 
cannot  be  due  to  a  different  view  of  the  canon  from  that 
in  Palestine  as  is  seen  from  three  considerations. 

(a)  There  is  every  indication  of  harmon}^  between  the 
Jews  of  Palestine  and  Eg}^t,  which  could  not  be  the 
case  if  they  differed  on  so  vital  a  matter  as  the  canon. 

(h)  Philo,  an  Alexandrian  Jew,  quotes  extensively 
from  most  of  the  canonical  books  but  neither  quotes  nor 
mentions  any  of  the  Apocr3^pha. 

(c)  Josephus  in  the  argument  against  Apion,  an 
Alexandrian  grammarian,  enumerates  the  sacred  books 
but  says  nothing  of  the  Apocrypha,  as  he  would  almost 
certainly  have  done  if  the  view  of  Egyptian  Jews  had 
differed  from  that  in  Palestine  on  this  subject. 

Thus  the  ancient  versions  at  most  prove  no  higher 
authority  for  the  Apocrjrpha  than  that  for  example 
which  was  conceded  by  Martin  Luther.  How  they  came 
into  the  Septuagint  we  do  not  know,  though  it  is  con- 
ceivable that  it  arose  from  their  being  kept  in  rolls  on 
the  same  shelf  with  the  sacred  books. 

In  reply  to  the  second  argument,  it  is  sufficient  to  state 
that  the  reading  of  the  Apocrypha  in  public  worship  by 
no  means  implies  their  canonicity.    Jerome  clearly  says : 


THE    CANON  37 

'^As  therefore  the  Church  reads  the  books  of  Judith, 
Tobit,  and  ^laccabees  but  does  not  receive  them  among 
the  canonical  Scriptures,  so  it  also  reads  these  two  vol- 
umes (Wisdom  and  Ecclesiasticus)  for  the  edification 
of  the  people,  but  not  for  authority  to  prove  the  doc- 
trines of  religion/^  Athanasius  held  a  similar  opinion. 
There  is  no  more  evidence  from  this  ancient  custom  for 
the  canonicity  of  the  Apocrypha  than  there  is  for  the 
same  view  in  the  Church  of  England  which  appoints 
certain  lessons  from  the  Apocryphal  books  ^^  for  example 
of  life  and  instruction  of  manners." 

Concerning  the  quotations  and  references  of  the 
fathers  to  the  Apocrypha  a  few  considerations  are 
important : 

(a)  A  mere  quotation  of  an  Apocryphal  book  does  not 
imply  that  it  was  considered  canonical. 

(h)  Many  of  the  church  fathers  were  careless  in 
quoting  the  Apocrypha  by  the  formulas  strictly  belong- 
ing to  sacred  scripture.  Such  carelessness  however 
exists  even  in  the  writings  of  those  fathers  who  elsewhere 
declare  explicitly  against  the  Apocrypha.  This  in- 
accuracy may  have  been  the  result  of  the  inclusion  of 
these  books  in  the  Septuagint  and  Vulgate. 

(c)  Even  if  it  be  proved  that  certain  church  fathers 
quoted  the  Apocrypha  as  canonical  we  need  only  reply 
that  they  were  in  error.  Sufficient  evidence  is  cited 
elsewhere  to  show  that  such  was  not  the  general  view  of 
the  church  in  ancient  times. 

Wildeboer  mentions  several  reminiscences  of  extra- 
canonical  books  in  the  New  Testament  as  evidence  that 
the  New  Testament  writers  considered  those  books 
authoritative.  He  lays  especial  stress  on  seven  quotations : 

Matt.  27:9  "  from  an  Apocryphal  book  of  Jeremiah." 


38       OLD    TESTAMEXT    IXTEODUCTIOX 

Luke  11:49^  ^'manifestly  quotations  though  we 
John  7  :  38  ^  are  not  able  to  identify  the  sources  " 
James    4: 5   J    (p.  53). 

I  Cor.  2 :  9  according  to  Origen  from  the  Apocalypse 
of  Elias. 

Eph.  5 :  14  according  to  Epiphanius  from  the  Apoca- 
l}^se  of  Elias. 

Jude  14-16  from  the  Book  of  Enoch. 

To  these  Buhl  adds : 

Heb  11 :  35  founded  on  II  Mace.  6. 

II  Tim.    3:8)    which  he  considers  either  from  the 
Heb.       11:  37  )    Apocrypha  or  oral  tradition. 
Answer. —  (a)    Of  the  seven  quotations   claimed  by 

AVildeboer,  not  one  is  from  a  book  contained  in  the 
Septuagint.  The  books  alluded  to  are  not  considered 
canonical  by  any  modern  church.  Xo  argument  can  be 
derived  from  their  use  for  the  canonicity  of  the  Apocry- 
pha as  found  in  the  Septuagint  or  the  Yulgate. 

( h )  The  way  the  passages  are  quoted  should  be  noted. 
If,  for  example,  Heb.  11 :  35  be  shown  to  be  an  allusion 
to  II  Mace.  6  it  merely  proves  that  the  writer  of  the 
epistle  considered  II  Mace,  a  truthful  historical  record 
— not  that  he  considered  it  canonical.  If  Paul  quoted 
certain  Greek  authors  with  approval  without  affirming 
their  divine  authority,  these  references  to  the  Pseude- 
pigrapha  give  no  evidence  that  the  books  were  canonical. 
Eeuss  admits :  "  In  all  the  Xew  Testament  no  one  has 
been  able  to  point  out  a  single  dogmatic  passage  taken 
from  the  Apocr3'pha  and  quoted  as  proceeding  from  a 
sacred  authority"  (pp.  8-9).  In  this  conclusion  Ejde 
concurs  (p.  154). 

(c)  The  passages  alluded  to  are  not  quotations.  At 
the  most  thev  are  onlv  bare  allusions  to  certain  books 


THE    CAXOX  39 

current  at  that  time.  Some  of  these  allusions  may  have 
been  to  oral  traditions  or  the  well-known  facts  of  Israel's 
history  rather  than  to  any  Apocr^-phal  record  of  that 

history. 

IX.'  The  Three-fold  Division  of  the  Canon.  Several 
theories  have  been  advanced  to  account  for  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  books  of  the  Hebrew  scriptures. 

1.  The  current  critical  view  is  that  the  three  divisions 
indicate  three  stages  of  collection  and  canonization. 

Ansv:er. — This  view  does  not  account  for  the  facts. 
As  will  be  shown  under  Special  Introduction,  several 
books  of  the  third  division  (Job,  Proverbs,  Song  of  Solo- 
mon,  Euth,  and  many  Psalms)  are  older  than  several 
books  in  the  second  division  (Kings,  Ezekiel,  Haggai, 
Zechariah,  and  Malachi).     Indeed  according  to  Jewish 
tradition  inspiration  ceased  with  Malachi.    The  second 
division  of  the  canon  must  therefore  have  remained  open 
till  nearlv  all  of  the  books  of  the  third  division  were  m 
existence' and  hence  canonical.    Furthermore  this  theory 
does  not   account  for  the  names  of  the  second  and  third 
divisions.     On  what  principle  was  the  third  division 
becrun^    Whv  were  not  the  books  of  the  third  division 
admitted  into  the  second  instead  of  being  placed  by 
themselves?     For  this  the  critics  give  no  satisfactory 
explanation. 

2.  The  Jewish  theologians  assert  that  the  three  divi- 
^ion=;  of  the  canon  correspond  to  three  degrees  of  in- 
spiration. The  highest  form  of  inspiration  was  that  of 
Moses  who  spoke  directly  with  God;  the  second  that 
of  the  prophets  who  wrote  by  the  spirit  of  prophecy;  and 
the  lowest  that  of  the  other  writers  who  were  inspired 
by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
'  ^;i^.i,-er.— Such  a  distinction  as  this  has  no  warrant 


40   OLD  TESTAMEXT  IXTRODUCTIOX 

in  the  scriptures  themselves.  The  prophets  possessed 
equal  authority  with  IMoses  and  the  other  writers  with 
the  prophets.  The  distinction  between  the  spirit  of 
prophecy  and  the  Holy  Spirit  is  purely  imaginary. 

3.  Certain  conservative  writers  distinguish  the  pro- 
phetic gift  and  the  prophetic  office.  The  books  of  those 
who  held  the  prophetic  office  were  placed  in  the  second 
division,  while  the  writings  of  those  who  had  the  gift 
of  prophecy  but  were  not  officially  prophets  were  placed 
in  the  third  division.  This  theory  is  the  most  satis- 
factory. 

A.  It  agrees  with  the  true  view  concerning  the  test 
of  canonicity.  The  Old  Testament  books  were  imme- 
diately recognized  as  divinely  authoritative,  because  their 
authors  were  known  as  the  official  representatives  of 
God  among  His  people.  This  fact  made  it  important 
to  separate  the  writings  of  the  prophets  from  the  works 
of  those  men  who  were  inspired  but  were  not  prophets. 

B.  It  accounts  for  the  classification  of  Joshua, 
Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings  as  the  "  Former  Prophets." 
These  books  cannot  have  been  called  Prophets  from  their 
internal  character.  Buhl  thinks  that  they  were  put  in 
the  second  division  because  they  contained  occasional 
utterances  of  the  prophets.  Such  a  principle  however 
would  have  brought  in  Chronicles.  The  principle  of 
arrangement  was  evidently  not  in  the  contents  of  the 
books  but  in  the  official  status  of  their  authors. 

C.  It  also  accounts  for  the  separation  of  Daniel  from 
Ezekiel,  his  contemporary  prophet,  and  the  separation  of 
Chronicles,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah  from  Samuel  and  Kings, 
the  other  historical  books.  The  books  of  Moses,  the 
founder  of  the  theocracy,  were  placed  by  themselves, 
then  those  of  his  successors,  the  prophets,  and  finally 


THE    CANON  41 

those  of  other  inspired  men  not  prophets.  Some  of  these 
were  Kings  like  David  and  Solomon,  others  priests  like 
Ezra,  and  others  were  possessed  by  the  spirit  of  prophecy 
like  Daniel. 

Three  serious  objections  are  offered  to  this  view. 

A.  Lamentations  is  found  among  the  Kethubim  al- 
though it  is  considered  the  work  of  the  prophet, 
Jeremiah. 

Answer. — It  has  been  shown  from  the  testimony  of 
Origen,  Jerome,  and  probably  Josephus  that  Lamenta- 
tions and  Euth  were  often  placed  and  counted  with 
Jeremiah  and  Judges.  When  so  counted  the  number 
of  books  was  22,  the  number  of  letters  in  the  Hebrew 
alphabet.  When  Euth  and  Lamentations  were  counted 
separately  the  number  was  24,  the  number  of  letters  in 
the  Greek  alphabet.  The  arrangement  according  to 
the  Hebrew  alphabet  was  probably  the  older.  Hence  the 
original  position  of  Euth  and  Lamentations  was  among 
the  Prophets  because  their  authors  held  the  prophetic 
office.  Later  they  were  placed  with  the  other  three 
short  books  which  were  also  read  in  the  synagogue  on 
certain  feast  and  fast  days.  These  five  Megilloth  were 
arranged  in  the  Hebrew  Bibles  in  the  order  of  the  days 
on  which  they  were  read  in  the  synagogues :  the  Song  of 
Solomon  at  the  Passover,  Euth  at  Pentecost,  Lamenta- 
tions at  the  fast  on  the  ninth  of  Ab,  Ecclesiastes  at  the 
Feast  of  Tabernacles,  and  Esther  at  Purim. 

B.  A  greater  difficulty  is  that  of  Daniel  which  is 
found  in  the  third  division,  although  Daniel  was  a 
prophet  (Matt.  24: 15;  Mark  13 :  14). 

Answer. — Although  Daniel  possessed  the  spirit  of 
prophecy  to  a  marked  degree,  his  office  and  his  work 
were  altogether  exceptional.     He  was  not  among  the 


43   OLD  TESTAMENT  IXTEODUCTIOX 

exiles  like  Ezekiel  but  at  the  court  of  Babylon,  and  he 
had  to  do  with  heathen  kings  rather  than  with  the 
people  of  Israel.  In  the  New  Testament,  like  David, 
(Acts  2 :  29-30)  he  is  called  a  prophet  because  of  his 
predictions. 

C  The  words  of  Amos  7:14  ("I  was  no  prophet 
neither  was  I  a  prophet's  son")  are  said  to  overthrow 
the  distinction  between  the  prophetic  gift  and  the 
prophetic  office.  It  is  said  that  according  to  our  prin- 
ciple x\mos  should  be  among  the  Kethubim  on  his  own 
word. 

Answer. — A  careful  reading  of  the  context  will  show 
that  Amos  does  not  deny  his  prophetic  office.  He  is 
speaking  of  what  he  was  before  God  called  him  to  be 
a  prophet;  for  immediately  after  this  statement  he 
says,  "The  Lord  took  me  as  I  followed  the  flock  and 
the  Lord  said  unto  me,  Go,  prophesy  unto  my  people, 
Israel"  (Amos  7:15).  This  was  his  commission  as 
a  prophet,  a  commission  which  was  never  given  to 
Daniel. 


II 

THE   TEXT 

I.  Languages    of    the    Old    Testament.     The    Okl 

Testament  was  written  in  the  Hebrew  language  with 
the  exception  of  portions  of  Daniel  (2:4 — 7:28)  and 
Ezra  (4 :  8—6 :  19 ;  7  :  12 — 27)  and  a  verse  in  Jeremiah 
(10:11)  which  are  Aramaic.  There  are  also  certain 
Aramaic  words  in  Gen.  31 :  47  and  possibly  elsewhere, 
though  many  words  and  forms  commonly  considered 
Aramaic  may  have  Ijeen  rare  or  archaic  Hebrew. 

II.  The  Semitic  Languages.  The  family  of  lan- 
guages to  which  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  belong  is  called 
Semitic  for  convenience  although  on  the  one  hand  they 
were  not  spoken  by  all  Semitic  people  (Persia,  Gen. 
10:22),  and  on  the  other  they  were  spoken  by  some 
non-Semites  (Phenicians,  Gen.  10:15).  Zimmern 
classifies  these  languages  as  follows : 

1.  Babylonian- Assyrian,  represented  by  cuneiform 
documents  from  at  least  the  fourth  to  the  first  mil- 
lennium before  Christ. 

2.  Aramaic. 

Ancient  Aramaic  inscriptions. 
A,  West  Aramaic. 

(1)  Biblical  Aramaic  (Jewish  Aramaic).     [The 

Aramaic   of   Daniel   and   Ezra   is   better 
classified  as  East  Aramaic] 

(2)  Palmyrene  Inscriptions. 

43 


44   OLD  TESTAMENT  IXTRODrCTIOX 

(3)  Nabatean  Inscriptions. 

(4)  Jewish-Palestinian  Aramaic. 

(a)  Jewish- Aramaic  (Targum  Onkelos,  Tar- 
gum  Jonathan). 

(6)  Galilean- Aramaic  (Jerusalem  Talmud, 
Jerusalem  Targums  and  Midrash). 

(5)  Christian-Palestinian    Aramaic     (Galilean- 

Aramaic). 

(6)  Samaritan. 

(7)  The  modern  Aramaic  dialect  of  Ma'lula  in 

the  Lebanon. 
B.  East  Aramaic. 

(1)  Babylonian  Aramaic  (Babylonian  Talmud). 

(2)  Mandaean. 

(3)  Syrian  (of  Edessa). 

(4)  The    modern    Aramaic    dialects    in     Tur 

'Abdin,   in    Assyria,    in    Kurdistan,    and 
on  Lake  Urmiah. 

3.  Canaanite. 

(1)  Canaanite    glosses    of    the    Tel-el- Amarna 

. letters. 

(2)  Phoenician  (and  modern  Punic). 

(3)  Hebrew. 

(a)  Biblical  Hebrew. 

(h)  Post-Biblical  Hebrew. 

(4)  Moabite.    (The  Mesa  Inscription). 

4.  Arabic. 

A,  North  Arabic. 

(1)  North  Arabic  inscriptions  of  different  kinds. 

(2)  Classic  ancient  Arabic. 

(3)  Modern    Arabic    dialects.      The   Arabic   of 

Syria,  Egypt,  Tunis,  Malta,  and  Oman. 


THE    TEXT  45 

B.  South  Arabic. 

(1)  Minsean  and  Sabaean  inscriptions. 

(2)  Modern  South- Arabian  dialects  (Mehri). 
5.  Ethiopic. 

(1)  Ancient  Ethiopic  inscriptions. 

(2)  Ethiopic  (Geez). 

(3)  Modern  Ethiopic  dialects. 
(a)  Tigre,  Ti-grina. 

(&)   Amharic. 

(Vergleichende  Grammatik,  pp.  1-3.)' 

These  five  groups  are  by  some  reduced  to  two  by 
designating  Arabic  and  Ethiopic  as  South-Semitic  in 
contrast  to  the  others  as  E'orth-Semitic.  It  was  for- 
merly customary  to  divide  them  into  the  East-Semitic 
(Babylonian- Assyrian)  and  the  West-Semitic. 

The  Semitic  languages  are  all  derived  from  a  single 
parent  language  which  disappeared  in  prehistoric 
times.  They  are  much  more  closely  related  to  each 
other  than  are  the  Indo-European  languages,  having 
many  things  in  common  both  in  vocabulary  and  gram- 
matical structure.  Though  the  original  Semitic  may 
have  come  from  a  common  source  with  the  Indo-Euro- 
pean languages,  the  Semitic  languages  now  possess 
scarcely  anything  in  common  with  the  Indo-European. 
There  is  however  a  close  affinity  between  the  Semitic 
languages  and  the  Egyptian  and  other  Hamitic  tongues 
of  Northeastern  Africa.  This  is  specially  seen  in  the 
personal  pronouns,  the  numerals,  and  in  the  formation 
of  the  verb. 

Concerning  the  original  home  of  the   Semitic  lan- 
guages, there  is  a  wide  difference   of   opinion.     Von 


46   OLD  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

Kremer,  Guidi,  and  Hommel  by  a  careful  study  of  the 
words  which  the  Semitic  languages  have  in  common, 
and  of  those  in  which  they  differ,  and  which  therefore 
each  language  must  have  obtained  after  separation  from 
the  parent  stock,  conclude  that  the  original  Semites 
migrated  to  Babylonia  from  the  regions  south  and 
southwest  of  the  Caspian  Sea.  The  more  probable 
theory  is  that  of  Wright,  Sayce,  Schrader,  and  others, 
that  the  Semites  came  into  Babylonia  from  the  south, 
viz.,  from  the  Arabian  peninsula — a  view  which  is 
supported  by  Semitic  tradition.  It  is  also  confirmatory 
of  this  theory,  that  though  the  youngest  of  the  Semitic 
languages,  Arabic  exhibits  the  least  evidence  of  decay 
and  preserves  the  original  grammatical  structure  more 
nearly  than  any  other  Semitic  language.  All  this 
agrees  admirably  with  Schrader's  conception  of  the 
migration  of  the  primitive  Semites  from  Arabia,  as 
outlined  by  William  Wright:  "He  imagines  the 
northern  Semites — i.  e.,  the  Aramaeans,  Babylonians, 
and  Canaanites — to  have  parted  in  a  body  from  their 
brethren  in  the  south,  and  to  have  settled  in  Babylonia, 
where  they  lived  together  for  a  long  period.  The 
Aramseans  would  be  the  first  to  separate  from  the  main 
body  of  emigrants;  at  a  considerably  later  period,  the 
Canaanites;  last  of  all  the  Assyrians.  At  the  same 
time  an  emigration  would  be  going  on  in  a  southerly 
direction.  Leaving  the  northern  Arabs  in  Central 
x^rabia,  these  emigrants  would  settle  on  the  southern 
coast  of  the  peninsula  whence  a  band  of  them  subse- 
quently crossed  the  sea  into  Africa  and  pitched  in 
Abyssinia"  (Comparative  Semitic  Grammar,  p.  9). 
A  third  theory  has  been  advanced  by  Noldeke  who 
arcrucs  from  the  resemblance  with  the  Hamitic  Ian- 


THE    TEXT  47 

guages  that  the  home  of  the  Semites  may  have  been 
in  Africa  (Sem.  Sprache  p.  11). 

There  are  several  peculiarities  of  the  Semitic  lan- 
guages in  which  they  differ  radically  from  the  Indo- 
European  : 

1.  The  Semitic  alphabet  consists  exclusively  of  con- 
sonants, the  vowels  not  being  essential  to  the  roots  of 
the  words. 

2.  Words  in  their  various  forms  and  inflections  are 
made  chiefly  by  internal  changes  rather  than  by  external 
additions  to  the  root.  These  internal  changes  are  of 
two  kinds,  the  introduction  of  certain  vowels,  and  the 
doubling  of  certain  consonants. 

3.  Eoots  consist  almost  invariably  of  three  letters. 

4.  The  Semitic  languages  lack  the  exactness  of  ex- 
pression peculiar  to  the  Indo-European,  but  on  the 
other  hand  they  far  excel  all  other  languages  in  vivid- 
ness. They  are  weak  in  those  connectives  and  particles 
which  give  precision  to  language  but  very  rich  in  words 
and  forms  which  indicate  intensity  and  plurality  or 
which  contain  metaphors.  They  are  concrete  rather 
than  abstract  and  pictorial  rather  than  logical.  They 
express  the  ruling  element  in  the  Semitic  character 
which  was  emotional  rather  than  intellectual. 

5.  Finally  the  Semitic  languages  exhibit  far  less  ten- 
dency to  change  than  the  Indo-European.  This  also 
corresponds  to  the  Semitic  character  which  has  kept 
the  Orient  unchangeable  in  customs  and  dress  for 
thousands  of  years.  Even  where  these  languages  have 
come  in  contact  with  other  languages  through  immigra- 
tion, commerce  and  conquest,  they  have  resisted  strongly 
the  tendency  to  change. 

It  has  often  been  pointed  out  that  on  account  of  the 


48   OLD  TESTAMENT  INTEODUCTION" 

last  two  of  these  peculiarities  a  Semitic  language  was 
best  adaj^ted  to  be  the  medium  of  the  early  revelation 
to  mankind,  since  that  revelation  so  largely  took  the 
symbolic,  pictorial  form,  and  the  preservation  of  the 
contents  of  revelation  unchanged  was  of  the  utmost 
importance.  Wlien  however  revelation  took  the  abstract 
form  and  symbol  gave  place  to  reality,  the  'New  Testa- 
ment was  given  in  the  most  exact  of  all  languages,  the 
Greek. 

A  brief  statement  of  the  history  of  these  languages 
must  suffice. 

1.  The  Assyrian,  or  as  some  prefer  to  name  it  the 
Bab^donian,  is  the  most  ancient  Semitic  language  in  the 
remains  which  we  now  possess.  Through  excavations 
during  the  last  half  century  we  have  a  very  large 
number  of  documents  in  this  language  extending  from 
4000  B.C.  or  even  earlier  to  about  500  B.C.  when  the 
Assyrian  yielded  to  the  Persian.  These  remains  include 
rock  inscriptions,  royal  histories  inscribed  on  large  clay 
tablets,  astronomical  reports,  the  code  of  Hammurabi, 
hymns,  syllabaries,  inscribed  boundary  stones  and  a 
great  mass  of  commercial  contracts  and  letters  upon 
small  clay  tablets  often  inclosed  in  a  clay  envelope. 
Though  many  of  these  antedate  1000  B.C.  the  great 
majority  belong  to  the  five  centuries  succeeding  that 
time.  As  early  as  1400  B.C.  Assyrian  was  the  political 
language  of  western  Asia  and  in  it  the  governors  of 
Syria  made  their  reports  to  their  Egyptian  master,  as 
preserved  in  the  Tel-el- Amarna  letters. 

Although  the  Assyrian  is  the  oldest  known  Semitic 
tongue,  even  in  its  earliest  form  it  shows  evidence  of 
having  undergone  a  long  development.  Doubtless  this 
is  partly  due  to  the  influence  of  the  ancient  non-Semitic 


THE    TEXT  49 

Akkadian  language  which  it  replaced.  The  old  perfect 
of  the  verb  is  almost  lost  as  is  also  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  guttural  letters.  Therefore  although  Assyrian 
is  not  of  great  value  grammatically  in  the  study  of 
Semitic  and  especially  of  Hebrew,  and  we  cannot  agree 
with  those  enthusiastic  Ass}Tiologists  who  consider  it 
the  Sanskrit  of  the  Semitic  languages,  we  may  expect 
from  its  vocabulary  increasing  light  upon  the  hapax 
legomena  of  the  Old  Testament  and  from  the  contents 
of  its  literature  increasing  confirmation  of  Old  Testa- 
ment history.  The  language  of  the  ancestors  of  Abra- 
ham, of  the  nation  whose  civilization  overran  Palestine 
in  the  century  before  the  Exodus,  and  which  finally 
conquered  both  the  Northern  and  the  Southern  king- 
doms is  of  great  importance  to  the  study  of  the  Old 
Testament. 

2.  The  original  home  of  the  Aramaic  language  was 
probably  on  the  southern  part  of  the  Tigris.  From 
there  it  gradually  spread  over  all  the  western  portion 
of  the  great  Assyrian  empire.  The  name  of  the  country 
where  this  language  was  spoken  is  ^'}^.  or  Syria. 
Aramaic  was  the  language  of  Padan-Aram  where  Laban 
lived  and  of  the  kingdom  of  Damascus  which  had  such 
frequent  intercourse  with  Israel  and  Judah.  It  was  the 
popular  tongue  of  a  large  part  of  the  ancient  Baby- 
lonian empire  and  was  known  to  Daniel  and  Ezra.  In 
the  Persian  period  its  influence  spread  over  Syria  and 
Palestine  and  reached  even  to  Asia  Minor,  Arabia,  and 
Egypt.  The  Jews  did  not  however  change  their  own 
language  for  Aramaic  during  the  Exile,  as  was  formerly 
supposed,  and  the  name  Chaldee  for  the  language  of 
Daniel  and  Ezra  is  altogether  erroneous.  The  Jews 
found   Aramaic   in  Palestine  upon  their  return  and 


50       OLD    TESTAMENT    USTTRODUCTION 

there  it  gradually  replaced  the  Hebrew.  Aside  from 
numerous  inscriptions  in  the  countries  already  men- 
tioned, the  chief  monument  of  Eastern  Aramaic  is 
found  in  the  portions  of  Daniel  and  Ezra.  These  are 
quite  near  to  the  Hebrew.  The  later  Western  Aramaic 
of  the  Targums  and  Talmud  however  differs  widely 
from  this  earlier  form. 

Since  the  Jews  used  the  term  Aramaean  as  a  designa- 
tion for  heathen,  that  name  was  rejected  by  the  Syrian 
Christians.  In  its  place  they  called  their  language  by 
the  Greek  name  Syrian  or  Syriac,  a  name  which  was 
originally  identical  with  Assyrian  but  later  was  con- 
fined by  the  Greeks  to  the  western  portion  of  the 
Assyrian  empire.  The  Syrian  Christians  also  adopted 
different  letters  from  the  Jewish,  probably  from  an 
Arabic  source,  and  in  this  language  we  have  the  ancient 
Syriac  version  of  the  scriptures  called  the  Peshitta. 
The  Samaritan  language  was  also  a  dialect  of  Aramaic 
and  it  is  spoken  to-day  in  various  forms  in  isolated 
places  of  the  East.  Aramaic  was  the  language  of 
Palestine  in  the  time  of  Christ  and  probably  of  our 
Lord  himself. 

3.  The  third  group  includes  the  languages  of  ancient 
Canaan  and  especially  Hebrew.  Of  all  the  Canaanite 
nations  and  indeed  of  all  people  speaking  Semitic  lan- 
guages the  Phenicians  were  the  greatest  traders.  Their 
ships  went  the  entire  length  of  the  Mediterranean  and 
even  to  Britain  and  they  made  colonies  in  Cyprus,  Sicily 
northern  Africa,  and  Spain.  The  oldest  known  inscrip- 
tions in  Phenician,  which  is  very  similar  to  Hebrew, 
date  from  the  eighth  century  before  Christ.  Many 
later  ones  have  been  found,  especially  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  Tyre  and  Sidon  and  of  ancient  Carthage. 


THE    TEXT  51 

A.  The  name  Hehrew  is  variously  explained.  It  is 
used  in  the  Old  Testament  of  the  people  and  never  of 
their  language.  By  some  it  is  derived  from  "i^?^  "  be- 
yond," hence  the  people  who  came  from  beyond  the 
river  Euphrates.  Therefore  Abram  is  called  the 
Hebrew  (Gen.  14:13).  Others  trace  it  to  Eber  the 
father  of  Peleg  (Gen  11: 14).  AYhatever  its  derivation 
the  term  Hebrew  was  used  broadly  of  all  Semites  (Gen. 
10:21)  and  of  a  people  be3'ond  the  Euphrates  (Num. 
24:24).  In  later  times  it  was  the  national  name  of 
the  chosen  people  as  Israel  was  their  covenant  name. 
This  distinction  gave  place  to  that  of  Israel  and  Judah 
from  the  schism  of  Jeroboam  and  onward.  The  lan- 
guage is  called  the  language  of  Canaan  (Isa.  19:18) 
and  the  Jews'  language  (Isa.  36:11)  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment but  Hebrew  in  the  prologue  to  Ecclesiasticus. 
Aramaic  is  called  Hebrew  in  the  New  Testament  as  the 
language  of  the  Hebrew  people  ( Jno.  5:2;  Acts  21 :  40 ; 
22  :  2,  and  probably  Jno.  19  :  20). 

B.  Remains  of  Hehrew.  The  Old  Testament  is  al- 
most the  only  classic  Hebrew  in  existence.  The  lan- 
guage of  the  Moabite  stone  is  indeed  so  similar  to 
Hebrew  that  it  is  classed  as  such  by  Eoediger  and  later 
by  Kautzsch  in  their  editions  of  Gesenius'  Hebrew  Gram- 
mar. This  inscription  of  thirty-four  lines  was  dis- 
covered by  a  German  missionary,  F.  A.  Klein,  at  Dibon, 
east  of  the  Dead  Sea,  and  is  now  preserved  in  the 
Louvre.  Mesa,  king  of  Moab  (about  900  B.C.),  records 
thereon  his  battles  with  Israel  and  his  buildings  (II 
Kings  3:4-5).  Others  designate  this  language  Moab- 
ite. Another  fragment  of  ancient  Hebrew  is  the  inscrip- 
tion of  six  lines  found  in  1880  in  the  tunnel  between 
the  Pool  of  Siloam  and  the  A^irgin's  Spring  in  Jerusa- 


52   OLD  TESTAMENT  IXTEODUCTIOX 

lem.  This  belongs  to  the  eighth  century  B.C.  (II 
Kings  20:20).  Besides  these  there  are  certain  seals 
engraved  with  proper  names,  some  of  them  pre- 
exilic,  and  a  number  of  coins  of  John  H}Tcanus  (135 
B.C.).  The  Mishna  (200  A.D.)  and  many  books  of 
later  times  were  written  by  Jewish  scholars  in  imita- 
tion of  the  Old  Testament  language,  but  such  works 
should  no  more  be  classed  with  Hebrew  literature  than 
modern  theological  works  in  Latin  with  Latin  literature. 

C.  History  of  Hehrew.  The  origin  of  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage is  involved  in  obscurity.  Its  similarity  to  the 
language  of  the  tribes  which  Israel  conquered  as  evi- 
denced by  the  Canaanite  glosses  in  the  Tel-el-x\marna 
letters,  argues  that  Hebrew  must  have  been  the  lan- 
guage of  the  patriarchs  before  their  descent  into  Eg}^i 
On  the  other  hand,  the  fact  that  their  kinsman  Laban 
spoke  not  Hebrew  but  Aramaic  (Gen.  31:  47)  and  that 
Jacob  is  called  an  Aramaean  (Deut.  26:  5)  argues  that 
Abraham  did  not  bring  the  Hebrew  language  with  him 
from  Haran.  The  most  probable  explanation  is  that 
Abraham  found  this  language  in  Canaan.  Since  it  was 
so  similar  to  Aramaic  it  was  easily  adopted  by  the  three 
generations  of  patriarchs  who  lived  in  Canaan.  That 
it  was  preserved  during  the  four  centuries  in  Egypt  is 
explained  by  the  isolation  of  Israel  in  that  land  and  the 
probability  that  they  remained  in  intercourse  with  the 
inhabitants  of  southern  Palestine. 

From  the  time  of  Moses  the  history  of  the  Hebrew 
language  can  be  traced  in  the  Old  Testament  itself. 
There  is  not  sufficient  evidence  for  the  conclusion  that 
there  were  different  dialects  of  Hebrew  in  different  parts 
of  Palestine,  though  the  pronunciation  of  an  Ephraimite 
differed  in  some  respects  from  that  in  Gilead  (Judges 


THE    TEXT  53 

12:6)  just  as  in  'New  Testament  times  a  Galilean  could 
be  distingiiislied  by  his  speech  (Matt.  26  :  73 ;  Luke  22  : 
59).  There  is  however  in  Hebrew  as  in  other  languages 
a  sharp  distinction  between  the  language  of  prose  and 
that  of  poetry,  the  latter  retaining  many  unusual  words, 
forms  and  constructions  which  had  become  obsolete  in 
prose. 

The  history  of  the  language  falls  into  two  periods, 
the  dividing  line  being  shortly  before  the  Exile.  The 
books  written  before  this  time  show  comparatively  little 
change  while  those  written  later  exhibit  a  rapid  de- 
terioration from  the  purity  of  the  older  language.  This 
has  been  well  described  by  Green :  "  In  the  writings  of 
Jeremiah  and  Zephaniah,  there  is  a  manifest  decline. 
The  books  of  Daniel,  Esther,  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  form 
a  striking  contrast  in  point  of  purity  of  language  with 
the  "historical  books  written  at  an  earlier  date.  The 
books  of  Chronicles  possess  the  characteristics  of  the 
later  Hebrew  to  a  greater  extent  than  the  Kings,  for 
though  the  latter  were  written  during  the  Exile,  they 
preserve  more  exactly  the  language  of  the  older  writings 
upon  which  they  are  throughout  based.  Ezekiel  pre- 
sents the  greatest  number  of  anomalies  and  foreign 
forms.  He  lived  and  labored  amongst  the  exiles  and 
probably  reflects  more  exactly  than  any  other  writer 
the  actual  deterioration  which  had  taken  place  in  the 
language  of  common  intercourse.  The  transition  which 
was  going  forward  is  also  shown  in  the  fact  that  Daniel 
and  Ezra  are  written  partly  in  Hebrew  and  partly  in 
Aramsan.  It  is  remarkable  that  in  the  prophets  sub- 
sequent to  the  exile,  Haggai,  Zechariah  and  Malachi, 
the  language  is  less  infected  with  Aramseisms  and  ex- 
hibits a  marked  return  toward  the  purity  and  correct- 


54       OLD    TESTAMENT    IXTEODUCTION" 

ness  of  former  times.  This  is  doubtless  due  to  their 
study  and  imitation  of  earlier  writers  and  not  to  any 
improvement  of  the  language  as  popularly  spoken" 
(General  Introduction.    The  Text,  pp.  21-22). 

There  is  a  difference  of  opinion  concerning  the  date 
when  Hebrew  ceased  to  be  a  spoken  language,  some 
contending  that  it  was  replaced  by  Aramaic  during  the 
Exile  and  others  that  it  remained  in  use  more  or  less 
till  the  second  century  B.C.  Both  these  views  are  ex- 
treme. The  first  is  opposed  by  the  fact  that  the  post- 
Exilic  prophets  used  Hebrew  as  the  language  of 
the  people,  and  the  other  by  the  Aram^eisms  of  the 
Exilic  prophets  and  the  Aramaic  portions  of  Ezra  and 
Daniel. 

We  know  that  Aramaic  was  known  to  Jewish  courtiers 
in  the  days  of  Hezekiah  701  B.C.  (II  Kings  18:26). 
But  the  process  of  change  from  Hebrew  to  Aramaic 
must  have  been  a  slow  one,  beginning  before  the  Exile 
and  continuing  a  century  or  more  after  it.  Yet 
many  must  have  understood  Aramaic  before  Hebrew 
ceased  to  be  spoken,  as  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  the 
authors  of  Ezra  and  Daniel  wrote  in  both  languages. 

D.  Hebrew  Letters.  The  present  square  characters 
of  our  Hebrew  printed  Bibles  were  not  the  original 
ones.  The  Siloam  inscription  and  the  Maccabean  coins 
were  written  in  another  form  which  is  very  similar  to 
that  which  has  been  preserved  in  the  Samaritan  Penta- 
teuch. According  to  the  best  authorities  these  older 
letters  were  derived  from  the  Phenicians.  It  is  im- 
possible to  determine  accurately  when  they  gave  place 
to  the  square  letters.  The  reference  of  our  Lord  to 
yodh  as  the  smallest  letter  of  the  alphabet  seems  to 
indicate  that  the  same  letters  were  in  use  in  his  time 


THE    TEXT  55 

as  in  ours  (Matt.  5: 18).  Probably  their  introduction 
was  a  gradual  process*  completed  not  later  than  a 
century  before  Christ. 

E.  Vowel  Points  and  Accents.  The  vowel  points  and 
accents  are  also  a  later  addition  in  Hebrew  as  in  Arabic 
and  Syriac.  The  variation  of  the  Septuagint  and 
Origen's  Hexapla  in  the  transliteration  of  proper  names 
shows  that  they  did  not  possess  the  vowel  points.  Syna- 
gogue manuscripts  never  have  them.  The  earliest  trace 
of  their  existence  is  in  a  manuscript  of  the  Latter 
Prophets  dated  916  A.D.  discovered  by  Firkowitch  in 
1839.  On  the  other  hand  the  Talmud  which  was  com- 
pleted in  the  fifth  century  gives  no  evidence  of  their 
existence.  Doubtless  the  vowel  points  and  accents  were 
introduced  by  the  Massorites  not  earlier  than  the  sixth 
century,  in  order  to  perpetuate  the  ancient  tradition 
concerning  the  meaning  and  pronunciation  of  the  sacred 
text. 

F.  The  Study  of  Hehrew.  Since  the  completion  of 
the  Old  Testament  canon  the  Hebrew  language  has  been 
the  subject  of  study,  first  among  Jews  and  then 
among  Christians.  The  scribes,  who  were  the  successors 
of  Ezra,  busied  themselves  with  the  sacred  text.  After 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  schools  for  the  study  of 
the  sacred  language  were  established  in  the  east  and 
flourished  there  nearly  a  thousand  years.  Their  stu- 
dents are  called  the  Massorites  or  students  of  the  Mas- 
sorah,  tradition.  From  them  came  the  Targums,  the 
Talmud,  the  system  of  vowel  points  and  accents,  and  the 
Iceri  notes.  About  1000  A.D.  the  Jewish  schools  in 
Spain  began  to  be  prominent,  especially  at  Grenada, 
Toledo  and  Barcelona.  These  scholars  studied  the 
grammar  and  lexicon  of  the  language  scientifically  and 


56   OLD  TESTAMENT  INTEODUCTION 

many  of  the  grammatical  terms  in  modern  use  came 
from  them.  The  most  famous  grammarians  of  this 
period  were  David  Kimchi  of  Xarbonne,  France  (1160- 
1232  A.D.)  and  Elias  Levita  who  died  at  Venice  in 
1549. 

Among  Christians  there  was  a  prejudice  against  the 
study  of  Hebrew  in  the  post-Apostolic  age.  Origen  in 
the  east  and  Jerome  in  the  west  are  the  only  church 
fathers  who  pursued  it.  The  same  ignorance  of  the 
language  continued  until  the  Eeformation,  when  with 
the  revival  of  learning,  a  new  interest  in  this  study  arose, 
under  Jewish  teaching.  The  most  eminent  of  these 
Eeformation  scholars  was  John  Eeuchlin,  whose  gram- 
mar appeared  in  1506.  All  the  Eeformers  however 
were  acquainted  with  Hebrew,  but  for  more  than  a 
century  after  the  Eeformation  the  Christian  study  of 
Hebrew  followed  Jewish  methods  and  accepted  Jewish 
results.  Johann  Bustorf  (1564-1629),  Professor  at 
Basel,  and  his  son  of  the  same  name  (1599-1664)  added 
much  to  the  knowledge  of  Hebrew,  the  former  produc- 
ing a  Hebrew  grammar  and  lexicon  as  well  as  a  Eabbinic 
Bible.  Albert  Schultens  (1686-1750),  Professor  at 
Leyden,  was  the  first  to  make  use  of  Arabic  extensively 
in  the  study  of  Hebrew.  He  with  N.  ^Y.  Schroder 
(died  1798)  were  the  leaders  of  the  Dutch  school.  In 
the  nineteenth  century  the  language  has  been  studied 
more  scientifically  than  ever  before.  Of  the  many 
Hebraists  of  modern  times  the  most  important  are 
William  Gesenius  (1786-1842)  of  Halle  whose  lexicon 
and  grammar  have  gone  through  many  editions  to  the 
present  time,  G.  H.  A.  Ewald  (1803-1875)  of  Gottingen 
who  attempted  a  rational  explanation  of  the  phenomena 
of  the  language  and  Justus  Olshausen  (1800-1882)  of 


THE    TEXT  57 

Berlin  who  traced  Hebrew  words  and  forms  to  primitive 
Semitic  as  perpetuated  in  Arabic. 

4.  Arahic.  This  branch  of  the  Semitic  family  of 
languages  is  divided  into  the  North  and  South  Arabic. 

A.  North  Arabic  was  the  language  whose  original 
home  was  in  the  northern  and  central  portion  of  that 
vast  peninsula.  Though  the  peoples  of  northern  Arabia 
are  known  to  have  engaged  in  wars  with  Assyria,  Persia 
and  Eome,  we  have  as  yet  no  knowledge  of  the  language 
in  those  ancient  times,  except  a  few  inscriptions  perhaps 
of  the  time  of  the  Ptolemies  The  Arabs  who  lived  in 
the  ancient  Nabathean  Kingdom  east  of  the  Dead  Sea 
(Isa.  60:7)  shortly  before  and  after  Christ,  spoke 
Aramaic.  Yet  their  native  language  often  shows  itself 
through  the  adopted  tongue.  And  their  Arabic  was 
evidently  very  similar  to  the  classic  language.  In  the 
sixth  century  of  our  era  the  Arabic  was  essentially  the 
same  throughout  all  the  Northern  portion  of  the  penin- 
sula. From  this  period  come  a  large  number  of  poetic 
rhapsodies  in  the  purest  form  of  the  language.  The 
military  conquests  of  Mohammed  and  his  fanatical  fol- 
lowers within  a  hundred  years  carried  the  standard  of 
the  prophet  as  far  east  as  India  and  westward  through 
all  northern  Africa  and  into  Spain.  The  Koran  was 
written  in  Koraish,  the  language  of  the  tribe  to  which 
the  prophet  belonged.  Its  style  is  in  imitation  of  the 
poets  of  the  previous  century.  This  became  the  sacred 
classic  language  for  the  entire  Mohammedan  world.  It 
fixed  the  language  in  a  stereotyped  form  from  which 
there  has  been  very  slight  variation  even  to  the  present 
day.  It  is  true  that  considerable  variety  exists  in 
pronunciation,  for  example  between  Egypt  and  Syria, 
and  the  common  people  carelessly  drop  the  vowel  sounds 


58   OLD  TESTAMEXT  IXTEODUCTIOX 

at  the  end  of  words.  Nevertheless  the  written  language 
to-day  is  everywhere  practically  identical  with  that  of 
the  prophet.  It  is  spoken  in  its  purest  form  by  the 
Bedouin  of  the  desert  and  is  most  corrupted  in  Malta, 
in  which  island  is  found  the  only  dialect  of  Arabic 
spoken  exclusively  by  Christians. 

Concerning  the  extent  of  Arabic  literature,  the  great- 
est of  modern  Arabic  scholars,  William  Wright,  has 
said :  "  There  are  few,  if  any,  nations  of  ancient  and 
medieval  Europe  which  can  boast  of  a  literature  like 
the  Arabic,  especially  in  history,  geography,  philosophy, 
and  other  sciences,  to  say  nothing  of  poetry,  and  of  the 
peculiar  systems  of  theology  and  law  which  depend  upon 
the  Koran  and  the  Sunnah'^  (Comparative  Semitic 
Grammar,  p.  27).  The  Arabic  is  distinguished  among 
the  Semitic  languages  not  only  for  its  extensive  litera- 
ture but  the  great  wealth  of  its  vocabulary  and  the 
remarkable  simplicity  and  richness  of  its  grammatical 
structure.  On  these  accounts  it  is  of  more  value  than 
any  other  language  to  the  student  of  Hebrew. 

B.  South  Arabic  was  the  language  of  the  ancient 
kingdom  of  Saba  or  Sheba,  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment (I  Kings  10:1;  Job  1:15;  Joel  3:8)  on  the 
southern  coast  of  Arabia.  It  is  also  called  Himyaritic 
and  includes  the  ancient  language  of  the  provinces  of 
Yemen,  Hadramaut  (Gen.  10:26)  and  Mahrah.  It  is 
known  to  us  in  its  pure  form  only  from  inscriptions 
whose  dates  are  probably  from  the  second  century  before 
to  the  fifth  century  after  Christ.  In  Yemen  this  lan- 
guage yielded  early  to  Northern  Arabic,  but  the  eastern 
provinces  retained  their  language  longer,  and  the  modern 
dialects  of  southeastern  Arabia  as  far  as  the  island  of 
^okotra  diifer  considerably  from  pure  Arabic, 


THE    TEXT  59 

5.  Etliiopic  was  the  language  of  Abyssinia,  an  ancient 
Himyaritic  colony,  and  it  is  classed  by  many  in  the  same 
group  with  Arabic.  Its  ancient  name  was  Geez.  The 
oldest  remains  of  it  are  royal  inscriptions  which  date 
from  350-500  A.D.  Noldeke  thinks  that  the  first  mis- 
sionaries to  Abyssinia  must  have  spoken  Aramaic. 
Thus  he  accounts  for  the  traces  of  Aramaic  especially 
in  the  religious  vocabulary  of  Geez.  The  translation  of 
the  Bible  into  Ethiopic  belongs  to  the  fourth  and  fifth 
centuries.  From  this  time  until  about  1000  A.D.  it 
continued  to  be  the  language  of  the  people,  but  after 
this  time  it  was  cultivated  only  by  the  priests  and  as 
the  language  of  the  schools.  The  modern  representa- 
tives of  Ethiopic  in  the  order  of  their  nearness  to  the 
mother-tongue  are  the  three  dialects  of  Tigre,  Tigrina, 
and  Amharic.  Apart  from  Arabic  the  last-named 
dialect  is  spoken  by  more  people  than  any  other  Semitic 
language,  its  territory  extending  far  to  the  south. 
Many  of  those  speaking  it  however  are  not  Semites 
and  well-nigh  half  its  vocabulary  is  derived  from  non- 
Semitic  languages.  Its  literature  is  confined  to  a 
few  songs  of  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries 
and  books  of  European  missionaries  in  the  nineteenth 
century. 

III.  Hebrew  Manuscripts.  The  manuscripts  of  the 
Old  Testament  are  of  two  kinds,  synagogue  rolls  and 
private  manuscripts.  The  former  were  used  for  reading 
in  the  public  worship.  They  accordingly  included  only 
those  parts  read  in  the  synagogue,  viz.,  the  Pentateuch, 
selections  from  the  Prophets  and  the  five  Megilloth. 
The  Law  was  commonly  in  a  roll  by  itself,  then  the 
Haphtaroth  or  selections  from  the  Prophets  and  the 
five  small  books  in  as  many  small  rolls.    According  to 


60       OLD    TESTAMENT    INTEODUCTIOIN' 

the  Talmud  the  utmost  care  was  taken  in  the  prepara- 
tion of  these  rolls,  the  rules  governing  the  kind  of 
parchment  and  ink,  the  formation  of  the  letters  and 
columns,  and  the  correction  of  the  manuscript.  If  four 
errors  were  found  on  one  page  of  a  manuscript  it  was 
rejected.  When  these  manuscripts  became  old  they 
were  placed  in  the  Geniza,  or  lumber-room  of  the  syna- 
gogue. Not  many  of  them  have  come  into  Christian 
hands. 

Private  manuscripts  were  also  prepared  with  great 
care  and  many  of  them  are  beautifully  adorned  with 
handsome  initial  letters  and  marginal  pictures.  They 
are  often  accompanied  by  marginal  additions  such  as 
the  Massora,  a  Targum  or  Arabic  version,  or  a  Eabbinic 
commentary.  Sometimes  they  are  upon  rolls  but  more 
often  in  book  form  and  rarely  is  the  entire  Old 
Testament  contained  in  a  single  volume. 

The  determination  of  the  age  of  Hebrew  manuscripts 
is  a  very  difficult  matter.  Often  they  are  undated  and 
one  must  depend  entirely  upon  the  known  antiquity  of 
some  marginal  doxology  or  other  formula.  The  dates 
attached  to  many  manuscripts  are  difficult  to  interpret, 
for  they  count  from  different  eras  and  often  the 
thousands  and  even  the  hundreds  are  omitted.  Fur- 
thermore dates  are  sometimes  added  to  them  or  existing 
dates  altered,  in  order  to  increase  their  value.  There 
are  also  many  extravagant  stories  concerning  the  age 
of  some  manuscripts.  The  known  manuscripts  of  the 
Old  Testament  are  not  nearly  so  numerous  as  those 
of  the  New  Testament.  Xor  are  they  so  old  as  the 
Greek  manuscripts  or  even  the  manuscripts  of  some  Old 
Testament  versions.  The  oldest  dated  manuscript  is 
the  St.  Petersburg  Codex  of  A.D.  916  which  contains 


THE    TEXT  61 

the  Latter  Prophets.  A  facsimile  of  this  codex  has 
been  edited  by  Professor  Strack  (St.  Petersburg  187G). 
Ginsburg  however  considers  the  manuscript  in  the 
British  Museum,  known  as  Oriental  4445  to  date  from 
A.D.  820-850.  This  contains  186  folios  of  which  55 
were  lost  and  replaced,  according  to  a  note,  in  A.D. 
1540.  The  Codex  of  Moses  ben  Asher  from  about  890- 
895  A.D.  is  said  to  be  kept  by  the  Karaite  Jews  in  Cairo 
and  that  of  his  son  Aaron  ben  Asher  is  said  to  be  in 
the  possession  of  the  Jews  in  Aleppo.  The  former  of 
these  contains  only  the  Prophets,  the  latter  the  entire 
canon.  The  oldest  manuscript  of  the  entire  Old  Testa- 
ment is  one  of  the  Eirkowitsch  collection  dated  A.D. 
1010.  An  examination  of  several  hundred  manuscripts 
has  resulted  in  finding  no  important  variations — far 
fewer  than  are  found  in  New  Testament  codices. 

The  Samaritan  Pentateuch  should  also  be  classed 
among  Hebrew  codices,  since  it  is  not  a  translation  of 
the  Pentateuch  into  the  Samaritan  language,  but  the 
Hebrew  original  written  in  Samaritan  letters.  The 
first  copy  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  to  reach  Europe 
was  brought  thither  from  the  Samaritan  community  in 
Damascus  by  the  Italian  traveler  Peter  della  Valle  in 
1616  A.D.  It  was  published  in  the  Paris  Polyglott 
(1645)  and  the  London  Polyglott  (1657).  The  copy 
preserved  in  the  synagogue  at  Nablus  is  said  to  have 
been  written  by  Abishua,  the  great-grandson  of  Aaron. 
The  oldest  known  manuscript  of  the  Samaritan  Penta- 
teuch is  in  the  New  York  Public  Library.  Its  date  is 
1232  A.D. 

There  has  been  much  discussion  concerning  the  origin 
and  reliability  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch.  These 
questions  depend  largely  upon  the  origin  of  the  Samari- 


62       OLD    TESTAMENT    INTRODUCTION 

tans  themselves.  They  are  not  descendants  of  Israelites 
of  the  northern  kingdom  but  of  the  colonists  whom  the 
king  of  Assyria  sent  to  Samaria  after  its  capture  and 
the  exile  of  its  inhabitants  (II  Kings  17:  24-25).  These 
colonists  adopted  the  worship  of  Jehovah  (II  Kings 
17:25-29)  and  when  the  exiles  returned  to  Jerusalem, 
the  Samaritans  offered  to  assist  them  in  rebuilding  the 
temple  (Ezra  4:  1-2).  This  being  refused  they  set  up 
a  rival  temple  on  Mount  Gerizim,  which  they  now  afiSrm 
was  built  in  Joshua's  day.  In  the  seventeenth  century 
they  had  small  communities  in  Cairo,  Gaza,  and  Damas- 
cus but  now  there  remain  only  three  hundred  of  them 
at  Xablus.  They  have  always  hated  the  Jews  and  yet 
claimed  descent  from  them.  The  old  view  that  their 
Pentateuch  comes  from  that  which  existed  in  the 
northern  kingdom  before  Sargon  captured  Samaria,  is 
now  generally  abandoned.  We  know  however  that  the 
Pentateuch  existed  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel  from  the 
pre-exilic  prophets  of  that  kingdom  (Hosea  and  Amos) 
and  it  is  difficult  to  understand  how  the  Samaritans 
were  taught  the  religion  of  the  land  without  receiving 
its  sacred  books  (II  Kings  17:28).  The  commonly 
accepted  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  Samaritan  Penta- 
teuch is  based  upon  an  incident  mentioned  by  Josephus 
— that  Manasses,  brother  of  the  high-priest  at  Jerusa- 
lem, married  the  daughter  of  Sanballat,  governor 
of  Samaria,  and  being  excommunicated,  fled  to  Samaria 
and  set  up  the  rival  worship  at  ^It.  Gerizim.  This 
statement  of  Josephus  probably  rests  upon  Neh.  13 :  28. 
It  is  supposed  that  this  Manasses  took  the  Pentateuch 
with  him  to  Samaria.  If  this  theory  be  the  true  one, 
the  rejection  of  the  later  books  by  the  Samaritans  is 
due  to  the  fact  that  those  books  sanction  the  worship 


THE    TEXT  63 

at  Shiloh  and  Jerusalem.  In  order  to  substantiate  the 
false  claims  of  Mt.  Gerizim  the  Samaritans  also  altered 
the  text  of  the  Pentateuch. 

The  Samaritan  Pentateuch  varies  in  many  passages 
from  the  Massoretic  text  and  a  careful  examination  has 
revealed  the  fact  that  many  of  these  readings  agree 
with  the  Septuagint  against  the  Hebrew.  From  this 
some  have  concluded  that  the  Septuagint  was  made 
from  a  Samaritan  codex  and  others  that  both  were 
derived  from  a  common  source  which  differed  radically 
from  the  Massoretic  text.  The  large  number  of  diverg- 
ences from  the  Septuagint  makes  these  views  untenable. 
Probably  the  Samaritan  codex  was  altered  to  conform 
to  the  Septuagint  in  order  to  strengthen  its  claims, 
when  the  Septuagint  was  held  in  high  esteem.  Formerly 
scholars  were  disposed  to  extol  the  Samaritan  text  as 
representing  the  most  ancient  tradition.  Since  it  has 
been  found  to  be  comparatively  modern  and  that  the 
manuscripts  differ  between  themselves  much  more  than 
Hebrew  manuscripts,  the  old  view  has  changed.  Buhl 
expresses  a  conservative  conclusion :  "  The  Samaritan 
text  has  been  so  disfigured  by  errors  of  transcription 
and  by  arbitrary  treatment,  that  its  critical  importance 
is  very  much  restricted"  (p.  89). 

There  is  a  version  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  in 
the  Samaritan  language  dating  from  about  the  second 
century  A.D.  and  an  Arabic  version  from  the  eleventh 
or  twelfth  centuries. 

IV.  Divisions  of  the  Hebrew  Text.  These  are  of 
four  kinds. 

1.  Verses.  These  are  of  Jewish  origin  and  antedate 
the  Talmud.  The  Jews  marked  the  end  of  the  verse 
by  placing  a  perpendicular  line  called  Silluh  under  the 


64   OLD  TESTAMENT  IXTEODUCTIOX 

last  word  and  two  dots  called  Soph  Pasuk  ("  end  of  the 
verse")  in  a  perpendicular  position  after  it.  The 
numbering  of  the  verses  was  adopted  from  Eobert 
Stephen's  edition  of  the  Vulgate  (1555  K.Vi.). 

2.  Paragraphs  or  Parashas.  These  are  also  ancient. 
They  are  of  two  kinds — open  and  closed.  Open  para- 
graphs are  those  in  which  there  is  a  change  of  thought. 
In  manuscripts  the  remainder  of  the  line  before  an 
open  paragraph  is  left  open.  If  this  space  equals  that 
of  three  triliteral  words  the  open  parasha  begins  at  the 
extreme  right  of  the  next  line,  but  if  not  another  entire 
line  is  left  vacant.  A  closed  parasha  indicates  a  slighter 
change  of  thougiit  and  may  begin  on  the  same  line 
with  the  end  of  the  previous  parasha.  These  rules  are 
generally  ignored  in  printed  editions.  In  some  manu- 
scripts and  most  printed  Hebrew  Bibles  open  paragraphs 
are  marked  by  a  a  (  '^^^^^  z=z  open)  in  the  space  at  the 
beginning  and  closed  paragraphs  by  aD(  "^P^^ip^r  closed). 
This  custom  however  is  of  later  origin. 

3.  Synagogue  Lessons.  These  are  of  two  systems. 
According  to  the  Palestinian  custom  the  Pentateuch  was 
read  through  on  the  Sabbath  once  in  three  years.  Ac- 
cordingly it  was  divided  into  154  to  167  sections  called 
Sedarim  ( ^"""^l?  )  •  These  are  ignored  in  most  manu- 
scripts and  printed  editions,  since  the  Babylonian 
method  prevailed  over  that  in  Palestine.  According  to 
the  Babylonian  system  there'  are  54  sections  in  the 
Pentateuch  called  Perashiyoth  (  ^^*?^? )  allowing  for 
reading  the  entire  law  in  one  year.  In  many  manu- 
scripts and  printed  copies  these  Perashiyoth  are  indi- 
cated by  a  thrice  repeated  D  if  their  beginning  coincides 
with  the  beginning  of  an  open  paragraph,  and  by  a  thrice 
repeated  D  if  it  coincides  with  the  beginning  of  a  closed 


THE    TEXT  65 

paragraph.  Perashiyoth  are  named  like  the  books  of 
the  Pentateuch  from  their  opening  words.  Certain 
sections  of  the  prophets  called  Haphtaroth  ("dismis- 
sals^^) were  read  after  the  reading  of  the  law  on  the 
Sabbath.  They  are  not,  however,  indicated  in  the  text 
but  at  the  close  of  our  printed  editions  is  a  table  stating 
what  haphtara  should  be  read  after  each  parasha. 

4.  Chapters.  This  division  is  of  Christian  origin, 
having  been  used  first  in  the  Vulgate  in  the  thirteenth 
century.  Eabbi  Solomon  ben  Ishmael  (about  1330 
A.D.)  numbered  the  chapters  according  to  the  Christian 
mode  to  facilitate  reference,  but  it  was  not  until  much 
later  that  this  division  was  generally  adopted.  It  is 
found  in  the  Bomberg  Bible  of  1517. 

V.  Versions.  There  are  four  ancient  versions  of  the 
Old  Testament  which  were  made  directly  from  the 
Hebrew:  the  Greek  Septuagint,  the  Aramaic  Targums, 
the  Syriac  Peshitta,  and  the  Latin  Vulgate,  of  which 
the  last  two  include  also  the  New  Testament. 

1.  The  Septuagint,  also  called  the  Alexandrian  ver- 
sion, from  the  city  of  its  origin,  is  not  only  the  oldest 
known  translation  of  the  Jewish  scriptures  but  the 
oldest  known  translation  of  any  book.  The  exact  time 
of  the  Septuagint  is  unknown.  It  is  fixed,  however, 
between  two  dates.  The  prologue  of  the  book  of  Eccle- 
siasticus  (130  B.C.)  alludes  to  "the  law,  the  prophets 
and  the  rest  of  the  books"  as  already  translated  into 
Greek.  This  date  is,  therefore,  the  latest  to  which  this 
version  can  be  brought.  On  the  other  hand  the  letter 
of  Aristeas,  which  Buhl  dates  earlier  than  198  B.C., 
gives  an  account  of  the  origin  of  the  Septuagint.  This 
Aristeas  is  said  to  have  been  an  officer  of  Ptolemy  II, 
Philadelphus  (B.C.  284-247)  and  the  letter  was  written 


66   OLD  TESTAMENT  INTKODUCTION 

to  his  brother  Philocrates.  The  story  is  as  follows: 
Demetrius  Phalereus  persuaded  the  king  to  have  the 
Jewish  Law  translated  into  Greek.  The  king  sent 
Aristeas  with  a  guard  to  Eleazar  the  High  Priest  at 
Jerusalem  to  request  a  copy  of  the  Law  and  competent 
translators.  The  High  Priest  sent  seventy-two  men,  six 
from  each  tribe,  and  a  copy  of  the  Law  written  in  golden 
letters.  Ptolemy  sent  the  men  to  the  island  of  Pharos 
where  they  finished  the  translation  in  seventy-two 
days. 

According  to  Philo  these  translators  were  inspired, 
and  certain  church  fathers  as  well  as  the  Talmud  affirm 
that,  though  made  independently,  their  translations 
were  found  to  be  exactly  alike.  This  story  is  not  worthy 
of  credence.  It  serves  however  to  show  that  the  Penta- 
teuch was  translated  into  Greek  in  Alexandria  about 
250  B.C.  The  varying  excellence  of  the  translation  in 
other  books  indicates  that  they  were  not  all  done  by  the 
same  men  nor  at  the  same  time.  The  Pentateuch, 
Former  Prophets,  and  Psalms  are  well  rendered,  but 
the  translation  of  the  other  books  is  either  slavishly 
literal,  as  in  Ecclesiastes,  or  very  free,  as  in  Daniel  and 
elsewhere.  The  most  natural  conclusion  is  that  the 
Septuagint  was  a  gradual  work  occupying  the  century 
from  250  to  150  B.C.  Considering  the  times  the  work 
was  remarkably  well  done,  but  it  is  not  in  every  part  a 
translation  in  the  modern  sense.  No  sharp  distinction 
was  made  in  those  days  between  the  work  of  translation 
and  that  of  interpretation.  Thus  the  Septuagint  is  in 
some  places  a  translation,  in  others  a  paraphrase,  and 
in  others  a  running  commentary.  It  bears  many  evi- 
dences of  its  Jewish  origin,  but  none,  as  some  have 
affirmed,  of  the  influence  of  Greek  philosophy. 


THE    TEXT  67 

The  Septuagint  at  first  was  welcomed  by  the  Jews. 
There  is  not,  however,  sufficient  ground  for  the  assertion 
that  it  was  used  in  the  synagogues  of  Palestine.  Never- 
theless Josephus  used  it  extensively,  and  wc  know  from 
the  New  Testament  that  it  must  have  been  familiar  to 
many  other  Palestinian  Jews.  In  later  times  when  con- 
troversies arose  betAveen  the  Jews  and  the  Christians,  the 
latter  referred  to  the  Septuagint  and  the  former  to  the 
original  Hebrew.  Thus  the  Jewish  view  concerning  the 
Septuagint  gradually  changed  to  one  of  bitter  dislike. 
They  affirmed  that  the  Christians  altered  the  Greek  text 
to  support  their  views  and  the  same  contention  was 
made  by  the  Christians,  that  the  Jews  altered  the 
Hebrew  original. 

The  text  of  the  Septuagint  soon  became  corrupt  and 
in  the  time  of  Origen  (25i  A.D.)  there  were,  according 
to  his  testimon}^,  almost  as  many  readings  as  there  were 
manuscripts.  Accordingly  that  great  scholar  attempted 
in  his  Hexapla  to  restore  the  original  Greek  and  to  show 
its  relation  to  the  Hebrew.  He  placed  the  Septuagint 
in  parallel  columns  with  the  Hebrew.  Origen  however 
did  not  succeed  in  unifying  the  Alexandrian  text.  He 
marked  the  passages  where  the  Septuagint  differed  from 
the  Hebrew  and  even  added  within  marks  words  wantins: 
in  the  Greek.  Later  revisions  of  the  Septuagint  were 
made  by  Lucian  of  Samosata,  the  founder  of  the  Anti- 
ochian  school  (martyred  311  A.D.),  and  Hesychius,  an 
Egyptian  bishop  (also  martyred  311  A.D.).  These 
various  recensions  themselves  became  corrupted.  The 
result  was  greater  and  greater  confusion  which  has  only 
been  partly  cleared  up  in  modern  times.  The  first 
printed  edition  of  the  Septuagint  was  that  in  the  Com- 
plutensian  Polyglott  (1514-1517  A.D.).     This  was  fol- 


68   OLD  TESTAMENT  INTEODUCTION 

lowed  by  that  of  Aldus  Manutius  in  1518  A.D.  The 
principal  manuscripts  of  the  Septuagint  are  the  Codex 
Vaticanus,  in  Eome,  the  Codex  Alexandrinus  in  the 
British  Musenm,  and  the  Codex  Sinaiticus  in  the  Im* 
perial  Library  at  St.  Petersburg,  all  of  which  have  been 
published  in  facsimile.  The  best  recent  printed  edition 
is  that  of  H.  B.  Swete  which  largely  follows  the  Codex 
Vaticanus. 

Many  ancient  versions  were  made  from  the  Septua- 
gint,  the  most  important  of  which  were  the  Latin  Itala 
made  in  Xorth  Africa  in  the  second  century  A.D.,  the 
Syro-Hexaplaric  made  in  Alexandria,  617-618  A.D.,  the 
Gothic  by  Bishop  Ulfilas,  311-381  A.D.,  the  Ethiopic  in 
the  fifth  century,  the  three  Egyptian  versions  in  the 
three  dialects  (the  Sahidic  of  Upper  Egypt,  the  Coptic 
of  Central  Egypt  and  the  Bohairic  of  Lower  Egypt) 
about  400  A.D.,  the  Armenian  from  the  beginning  of  the 
fifth  century,  and  certain  Arabic  versions  found  in  the 
Paris  and  London  Polyglotts. 

There  are  three  ancient  Greek  versions  later  than  the 
Septuagint  of  which  only  portions  have  come  down  to 
us.  The  oldest  of  these  is  that  of  Aquila,  probably  a 
Jewish  proselyte  of  Pontus  in  the  middle  of  the  second 
century  A.D.  Jerome  says  that  he  was  a  pupil  of  Eabbi 
Akiba.  His  translation  was  slavishly  literal.  It  had 
wide  circulation  among  the  Jews  and  was  directed 
polemically  against  the  Christians,  as  is  proven  by  its 
rejection  of  the  translation  Xpurros  for  ^^^  The  trans- 
lation of  Tlieodotion  (180-192  A.D.)  was  an  attempt 
to  improve  upon  the  Septuagint.  It  is  doubtful  whether 
the  author  was  a  Jew  or  an  Ebionite.  At  any  rate  his 
version  found  little  acceptance  among  the  Jews.  Among 
Christians  it  was  highly  thought  of  and  largely  used 


THE    TEXT  69 

for  the  emendation  of  the  Septiiagint.  His  translation 
of  Daniel  finally  took  the  place  of  the  Septuagint. 
Origen  gave  the  version  of  Theodotion  a  place  in  the 
Hexapla.  The  third  Greek  translation  is  that  of  Sym- 
maclius,  an  Ebionite,  who  flourished  in  the  reign  of 
Severus  (193-211  A.D.)  His  translation  adheres 
neither  to  the  Hebrew  nor  the  Septuagint  but  is  in  good 
Greek.  The  only  Apocryphal  additions  in  any  of  these 
three  versions  are  the  postscript  to  the  Book  of  Job 
and  the  additions  to  Daniel  in  the  version  of  Theod- 
otion. 

2.  The  Targums  were  renderings  of  Old  Testament 
books  into  Aramaic.  The  word  Targum  is  derived  from 
an  Aramaic  root  meaning  to  explain,  the  same  root  from 
which  came  the  modern  word  dragoman.  It  occurs  in 
Ezra  4 :  7.  The  Targums  arose  by  a  gradual  process 
after  Hebrew  ceased  to  be  the  popular  language  of  the 
Jews.  Besides  the  reader  in  the  synagogue  an  officer 
was  appointed  called  a  i^^:T^9  or  interpreter,  whose 
duty  it  was  after  the  reading  of  each  verse  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch, and  after  three  verses  in  the  Prophets,  to  render 
it  into  the  language  of  the  people.  At  first  this  was 
done  orally,  though  private  use  may  have  been  made  of 
written  translations.  Later  these  renderings  became 
fixed  and  conventional.  The  Targums  were  a  long  time 
attaining  the  form  in  which  we  possess  them.  They 
are  not  the  work  of  any  one  time  or  a  single  group  of 
men,  but  represent  the  customary  synagogue  renderings 
in  different  parts  of  the  ancient  Jewish  world. 

None  of  the  Targums  covers  all  the  Old  Testament 
but  between  them  we  have  Aramaic  renderings  of  all 
the  books  except  Daniel,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah.  These 
were  not  made  into  Aramaic  because  of  the  Aramaic  por- 


70   OLD  TESTAMEXT  INTRODUCTION 

tions  of  Daniel  and  Ezra,  Nehemiah  being  classed  as  one 
with  Ezra. 

There  is  mention  of  a  Targum  on  Job  in  the  time  of 
Christ  and  it  is  probable  that  other  Targums  existed  in 
his  day.  The  dates  of  the  Targums  are  difficult  to 
determine.  The  oldest  and  best  Targum  on  the  Penta- 
teuch is  the  one  falsely  assigned  to  Onkelos  by  a  confu- 
sion of  that  name  with  Aquila,  the  author  of  the  Greek 
version.  This  Targum  was  composed  in  the  second  half 
of  the  second  century  A.D.  in  Palestine,  but  did  not 
receive  official  sanction  there.  It  was  accepted  by  the 
Jews  in  Babylon  and  called  their  own.  Some  scholars 
affirm  that  it  was  composed  in  Babylon.  For  the  most 
part  it  is  a  simple  translation  of  the  Hebrew,  though 
the  poetical  portions  are  more  freely  rendered  or  even 
paraphrased.  It  was  printed  at  Bologna  in  1482 
without  vowels  and  in  1491  with  vowels. 

Two  later  Targums  on  the  Pentateuch  are  based  upon 
that  of  Onkelos.  One  is  commonly  called  the  Pseudo- 
Jonathan  because  its  author  was  falsely  thought  to  have 
been  the  Jonathan  who  wrote  the  Targum  on  the 
Prophets.  The  other  we  possess  only  in  fragments.  It 
is  called  the  Jerusalem  Targum.  Both  these  contain 
many  legendary  additions  and  are  far  inferior  to  that 
of  Onkelos.  Zunz  assigns  the  Jerusalem  Targum  to  the 
seventh  century. 

The  oldest  Targum  on  the  Prophets  is  named  for 
Jonathan  ben  Uzziel,  a  pupil  of  Hillel  in  the  beginning 
of  the  first  century  A.D,  though  this  authorship  is  very 
doubtful.  It  is  much  freer  than  the  rendering  of 
Onkelos  and  often  amounts  to  a  running  commentary 
upon  the  text.  In  the  historical  books  of  the  Former 
Prophets    (Joshua,   Judges,   Samuel,   and   Kings)    the 


THE    TEXT  71 

translation  adheres  more  closely  to  the  original.  It  was 
first  printed  in  1494.  A  small  fragment  of  another 
Targum  on  the  Prophets  called  the  Jerusalem  is  pre- 
served on  the  margin  of  a  manuscript  called  154  by 
Kennicott. 

There  is  a  Targum  on  Psalms,  Proverbs  and  Job 
which  is  falsely  ascribed  to  Rabbi  Joseph  (A.D.  325) 
but  is  much  later  than  his  time.  The  portion  from 
Proverbs  is  quite  literal  and  is  thought  by  Eichhorn  to 
have  been  made  from  the  Peshitta. 

The  Targums  on  the  Megilloth  and  on  Chronicles 
probably  belong  to  an  ancient  Jerusalem  Targum  on  the 
Kethubim.  Especially  in  the  Song  of  Solomon  they 
exhibit  the  utmost  freedom,  being  really  a  paraphrastic 
commentary. 

The  Targums  are  valuable  as  indicating  the  current 
Jewish  exegesis  of  their  time  but  of  small  worth  in 
determining  questions  of  textual  criticism. 

3.  The  Peshitta,  or  old  Syriac  version,  was  so-called 
because  it  was  the  one  in  "  common  "  use  or  because  it 
was  "  simple "  in  giving  the  original  meaning.  The 
date  of  its  origin  is  uncertain.  The  Christian  church 
in  the  regions  about  Edessa  was  founded  not  later  than 
150  A.D.  Since  the  people  of  that  region  were  not 
acquainted  with  Greek  it  seems  possible  that  this  trans- 
lation was  made  in  the  last  half  of  the  second  century, 
although  no  sure  evidence  of  its  existence  is  known 
before  350  A.D.  The  translators  follow  the  Hebrew 
closely  but  the  version  of  the  Chronicles  reads  like  a 
Jewish  Targum.  From  both  these  facts  some  have  con- 
sidered the  Peshitta  the  work  of  Jews.  On  the  other 
hand  the  uniform  tradition  of  the  Syrian  church  and  the 
Vin-Jewish  accuracy  of  the  translation  argue  for  a  Chpis- 


72   OLD  TESTAMEXT  IXTRODUCTIOX 

tian  origin.  The  similarity  of  the  Syriac  to  Hebrew 
would  account  sufficiently  for  the  Syrians'  knowledge  of 
the  original.  The  hypothesis  that  the  translators  were 
Jewish  Christians  is  plausible.  The  version  of  the 
Chronicles  may  have  been  taken  from  a  Jewish  source. 

In  many  passages  the  Peshitta  corresponds  closely  to 
the  Septuagint.  Some  have  concluded  that  it  was  made 
with  special  use  of  that  version.  There  are,  however, 
more  passages  in  which  it  varies  from  the  Septuagint. 
The  high  esteem,  in  which  the  Septuagint  was  held  even 
in  S}Tia  is  shown  by  the  later  introduction  of  the  Syro- 
Hexaplaric  version.  Thus  the  Peshitta  may  have  been 
altered  in  conformity  with  the  Septuagint.  It  is  not 
equal  to  that  version  in  its  best  parts  but  is  much  more 
even  in  its  excellence.  Like  the  Septuagint  it  was  made 
by  a  number  of  men.  It  included  originally  only  the 
canonical  books,  but  the  Apocrypha  were  added  at  an 
early  date. 

The  Sijro-IIexaplaric  version  was  made  from  the  Sep- 
tuagint as  found  in  Origen's  Hexapla  by  the  Monophy- 
site  bishop,  Paul  of  Telia,  in  618  A.D.  From  that  time 
it  was  used  by  the  Monophysites  and  the  Peshitta  by 
the  Xestorians.  The  Syro-Hexaplaric  is  slavishly  literal 
and  often  transfers  Greek  words  into  the  Syriac  text. 

The  similarity  of  the  Peshitta  to  the  Septuagint  in 
many  passages  destroys  its  value  as  an  independent 
witness  to  the  original  text.  Yet  the  faithfulness  of  its 
rendering  in  other  passages,  where  the  Septuagint  is 
weak,  renders  it  an  important  link  in  the  chain  of  his- 
tory. All  printed  editions  go  back  to  the  Paris  (le-^tS) 
and  London  (1657)  Polyglotts  and  are  rare.  A  new 
critical  edition  is  greatly  needed. 

4.  The  Vulgate  Latin  version  has  received  its  name 


THE    TEXT  73 

from  the  name  f^otvi^,  which  was  formerly  applied  to  the 
Septuagint  as  the  version  in  common  use.  This  name 
was  transferred  to  Jerome's  version  for  the  same  reason 
in  the  thirteenth  century.  Jerome  (346-420  A.D.)  at 
first  intended  only  to  revise  the  current  Itala  version 
which  had  been  made  from  the  Septuagint  and  whose 
manuscripts  were  full  of  variations.  At  the  request  of 
Damasus,  Bishop  of  Rome,  he  revised  the  Psalms  (A.B. 
383).  This  revision  is  still  used  in  the  church  of  St. 
Peter  in  Rome  and  is  called  the  Roman  Psalter.  Then 
Jerome  proceeded  to  Cassarea  where  he  found  the  text 
of  the  Septuagint  in  Origen's  Hexapla.  With  this  aid 
he  made  another  version  of  the  Psalms  called  the  Galil- 
ean Psalter  because  of  its  extensive  use  in  Gaul.  He 
also  rendered  many  other  Old  Testament  books  with  the 
help  of  the  Hexapla  but  all  have  been  lost  except  the 
Book  of  Job. 

Thence  Jerome  went  to  Bethlehem  where  he  acquired 
a  knowledge  of  Hebrew  from  Jewish  teachers  at  con- 
siderable expense.  There  he  made  his  memorable  trans- 
lation during  fifteen  years  (390-405  A.D.).  As  the 
various  books  appeared  he  was  urged  by  many  of 
his  friends^  Augustine  among  them,  not  to  depart 
from  the  Septuagint  for  which  a  superstitious  reverence 
existed  in  his  day.  To  these  entreaties  he  partially 
yielded.  He  also  consented  to  translate  Tobit  and 
Judith  and  to  incorporate  the  other  Apocrypha,  al- 
though he  clearly  affirmed  their  inferiority  to  the 
canonical  books. 

For  a  long  time  the  Itala  was  used  side  by  side  with 
the  Vulgate.  Gradually  the  superior  excellence  of  the 
latter  made  itself  felt  and  by  700  A.D.  it  had  practically 
supplanted  the  Itala.     Their  co-existence  contributed 


7-i   OLD  TESTAMENT  IXTRODUCTIOX 

greatly  to  the  corruption  of  the  text  of  the  Yulgate. 
Familiar  passages  from  the  Itala  found  their  way  into 
the  Vulgate  and  it  became  customary  to  add  the  Itala 
reading  to  that  of  Jerome.  Many  attempts  to  unify  the 
text  of  the  Vulgate  were  made.  Lists  of  variations  were 
compiled  and  the  religious  orders  busied  themselves  with 
this  herculean  task.  After  the  invention  of  printing 
and  after  the  Eeformation,  new  motives  arose  for  the 
completion  of  this  work.  In  1546  the  Council  of  Trent 
decreed  that  "  the  Vulgate  which  had  been  approved  in 
the  church  by  the  long  use  of  so  many  centuries  should 
be  held  authentic  in  public  reading,  controversy,  preach- 
ing and  exposition,  and  that  no  one  should  dare  or 
presume  to  reject  it  on  any  pretext  whatever." 

This  made  the  editing  of  an  authorized  edition  neces- 
sary. The  Council  appointed  a  commission  for  this 
purpose.  They  had  scarcely  begun  their  work  when 
Pope  Paul  III  ordered  them  to  cease  and  send  their 
manuscript  to  Rome.  In  1563  the  Council  of  Trent 
adjourned  and  Pope  Pius  IV  confirmed  its  decrees. 
Later  attempts  on  the  part  of  scholars  and  publishers 
to  secure  a  pure  text  of  the  Vulgate  came  to  nothing. 
In  1587  Pope  Sixtus  V  summoned  another  commission 
for  this  purpose  and  superintended  their  work  with 
great  care.  This  was  published  in  1590  with  a  bull 
declaring  that  this  edition  "is  to  be  received  and  held 
as  true,  legitimate,  authentic  and  undoubted  in  all  public 
and  private  controversies,  readings,  preachings,  and 
expositions,"  and  prohibiting  all  other  editions  both 
past  and  future.  Sixtus  died  in  the  year  of  this  publi- 
cation. Certain  scholars  prevailed  upon  succeeding 
popes  to  forbid  the  use  of  this  edition  until  desired 
changes  had  Ijeen  made,    Finally  Clement  VIII  in  1592 


THE    TEXT  75 

published  this  amended  edition  of  the  work  of  Sixtus  V 
affirming  in  the  preface,  contrary  to  the  facts  of  history, 
that  it  was  the  edition  of  Sixtus  V.  Such  is  the 
authorized  edition  of  the  Vulgate. 

Despite  its  leanings  toward  the  Septuagint  and  the 
great  corruption  of  the  text  of  the  Vulgate,  even  in  its 
modern  form,  it  is  the  best  and  in  some  respects  the 
most  valuable  of  all  ancient  versions.  It  was  the  first 
book  printed,  an  edition  appearing  in  Mayence  in  1450 
and  another  dated  edition  in  1462. 

VI.  Printed  Editions  and  Polyglotts.  The  oldest 
printed  editions  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  were  from  Jewish 
sources.  An  imperfect  edition  of  the  Psalms  appeared 
in  1477  at  Bologna.  In  1488  the  entire  Bible  was 
printed  at  Soncino.  From  this  was  derived  the  Brescia 
Bible  in  1494  which  Luther  used  in  translating  the  Old 
Testament.  Luther's  copy  is  preserved  in  the  Eoyal 
Library  at  Berlin.  The  principal  Eahhinical  Bibles 
(that  is,  those  containing  the  Targums,  Massora,  or 
Rabbinical  commentaries)  are  those  of  Bomberg  which 
follows  the  Soncino  Bible  (Venice  1517,  second  edition 
1525)  and  Buxtorf  which  follows  the  Complutensian 
text  and  that  of  Bomberg  (Basel  1618).  The  best 
critical  editions  (those  which  contain  the  various  read- 
ings) are  those  of  Houbigant  (Paris  1753)  and  Kenni- 
cott  (Oxford  1776-80).  De  Eossi  published  his  Varia? 
Lectiones  separate  from  the  text  at  Parma  (1784).  The 
Athias  edition  (Amsterdam  1661-67)  collated  many 
ancient  manuscripts  not  hitherto  used.  It  was  followed 
by  Vander  Hooght's  (Amsterdam  1705)  upon  whose 
text  the  modern  Hebrew  Bibles  rest.  The  best  recent 
editions  are  those  of  Hahn,  Theile,  Baer  and  Delitzsch, 
and  Ginsburg. 


76       OLD    TESTAMEXT    IXTEODUCTIOX 

A  Polyglott  presents  the  Massoretic  text  and  several 
ancient  versions  in  parallel  columns.  In  ancient  times 
Origen  had  set  the  example  for  this  in  his  Hexapla 
which  included  the  Hebrew  text,  its  transliteration  in 
Greek  letters,  the  Septuagint  and  the  versions  of  Aquila, 
Theodotion,  and  Symmachus.  In  modern  times  there 
have  been  four  great  polyglotts — the  Complutensian, 
Antwerp,  Paris  and  London. 

1.  The  Complutensian  Polyglott  receives  its  name 
from  Complutum  (Alcala)  in  Spain,  where  it  was  pre- 
pared by  Cardinal  Ximenes  assisted  by  several  scholars 
of  the  University  of  Toledo  and  under  the  patronage  of 
Pope  Leo  X.  It  was  printed  in  1514-1517,  but  the  com- 
plete work  was  not  published  until  after  the  death  of  the 
Cardinal  in  1522.  It  is  in  six  volumes.  The  first,  on 
the  Old  Testament,  contains  the  first  edition  of  the 
Hebrew  text  issued  under  Christian  auspices,  the  Vul- 
gate, the  Septuagint,  and  the  Targum  of  Onkelos.  In 
the  sixth  volume  is  a  Hebrew  grammar.  There  were 
six  hundred  copies  published,  most  of  which  are  now 
lost.  The  original  manuscripts  are  in  the  library  of  the 
University  of  Madrid. 

2.  The  Antwerp  Polyglott,  or  Biblia  Eegia,  was  is- 
sued partly  at  the  expense  of  Philip  II  of  Spain  in 
1569-1572.  It  contains  eight  folio  volumes,  adding  to 
the  contents  of  the  Complutensian  Polyglott  the  Targum 
of  Jonathan  on  the  Prophets  and  a  Targum  on  the 
Kethubim,  besides  lexicons  and  treatises  on  Biblical 
subjects.  Of  this  five  hundred  copies  were  printed. 
Like  the  Complutensian  it  is  now  very  rare. 

3.  The  Paris  Polyglott,  containing  ten  folio  volumes, 
appeared  in  1645.  It  follows  the  text  of  the  Complu- 
tensian and  Antwerp  editions  but  adds  also  the  Samari- 


THE    TEXT  77 

tan  Pentateuch  and  version,  the  Peshitta,  and  an 
Arabic  version.    Of  this,  many  copies  are  still  extant. 

4.  The  London  Pohjglott,  edited  by  Bishop  Brian 
Walton  in  1656-7  in  six  folio  volumes  also  follows  the 
Complutensian  text.  It  contains  further  still  the  Itala, 
an  Ethiopic  version  of  the  Psalms  and  Canticles,  the 
Apocrypha  in  Greek,  Latin,  Syriac  and  Arabic,  the 
Targum  of  the  Pseudo-Jonathan,  the  Jerusalem 
Targum  of  the  Pentateuch  and  a  Persian  version.  In 
1669  Edmund  Castell  added  to  this  his  Heptaglot  Lexi- 
con in  two  volumes.  Copies  of  this  polyglott  are  not 
very  rare. 

YII.  Preservation  of  the  Text.  With  all  these 
aids — the  manuscripts,  quotations,  and  ancient  versions 
before  us,  the  question  remains  how  near  our  modern 
printed  Hebrew  Bibles  are  to  the  original  autograph. 
How  far  back  can  we  trace  the  text  as  we  have  it  ? 

It  is  admitted  that  the  Bible,  like  other  books,  was 
liable  to  errors  of  transmission.  Before  the  invention 
of  printing  these  errors  were  of  various  kinds :  those  of 
the  eye,  when  the  copyist  read  his  manuscript  wrong  or 
omitted  words  by  accident;  those  of  the  ear  when  one 
read  the  manuscript  and  another  copied  it;  those  of  the 
memory,  when  the  transcriber  altered  a  passage  after 
having  read  it  correctly;  and  those  of  the  Judgment, 
when  he  divided  sentences  wrongly  or  introduced  a 
marginal  note  into  the  text.  There  are  also  instances 
of  intentional  alteration  in  order  to  restore  the  supposed 
original  or  to  substantiate  some  dogmatic  opinion. 

Despite  all  these  causes  of  error  all  Hebrew  manu- 
scripts contain  practically  the  same  text.  De  Eossi  and 
Kennicott  collated  the  variations  of  several  hundred 
manuscripts.    These  variations  affect  no  vital  doctrine. 


'^8       OLD    TESTAMENT    IXTEODUCTIO^^" 

They  are  all  unintentional  deviations  from  a  fixed  form 
which  we  call  the  Massoretic  text.  This  first  step 
carries  back  the  text  as  we  have  it  to  the  tenth 
century  A.D. 

For  the  centuries  before  this  we  are  dependent  upon 
quotations.  These  are  reliable  according  to  their  nature. 
A  quotation  made  from  memory  or  wliere  accuracy  was 
unimportant  has  little  value  in  textual  criticism.  But 
if  the  writer  is  known  to  be  accurate  in  other  matters 
or  if  he  bases  his  argument  upon  the  exact  wording  of 
the  quotation,  it  becomes  valuable.  The  quotations  in 
Jerome,  the  Tahnud,  the  Mishna,  and  Origen  yield  the 
same  text  which  we  now  have.  The  variations  are  un- 
important and  where  they  occur,  it  is  more  likely  that 
the  text  of  the  quotation  is  corrupt  than  that  it  repre- 
sents a  different  original  from  our  present  text. 

This  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  the  great  care  of  the 
Massorites.  They  did  not  venture  to  change  a  single 
reading  nor  even  alter  the  size  of  a  letter.  If  a  word 
was  thought  incorrect,  they  left  it  unchanged  and  put 
the  suggested  substitute  in  the  margin.  They  merely 
perpetuated  the  text  as  they  found  it.  The  body  of 
textual  notes  called  the  Massora  make  it  possible  to 
trace  the  text  far  back  of  the  oldest  manuscripts.  Thus 
we  find  essentially  the  same  text  which  we  possess  at  the 
time  of  the  Mishna  (200  A.D.). 

The  same  period  or  a  little  earlier  may  be  reached  by 
an  independent  line  of  testimony,  the  ancient  versions. 
Here  also  a  word  of  warning  is  necessary.  A  version  is 
not  as  reliable  a  witness  in  textual  criticism  as  a  manu- 
script, because  tlie  text  of  a  version  is  not  kept  with  as 
great  care  as  that  of  the  original.  A  comparatively  pure 
text  of  the  version  must  be  secured  before  it  is  a  safe 


THE    TEXT  T9 

guide  by  which  to  correct  the  original.  Furthermore 
the  reliability  of  a  version  for  this  purpose  depends  upon 
the  knowledge  and  sincerity  of  its  makers  and  the  gen- 
eral accuracy  of  its  renderings.  Of  the  four  ancient 
versions,  three,  the  Vulgate,  the  Peshitta  and  the  better 
Targums,  were  evidently  made  from  a  text  virtually 
identical  with  our  own.  This  brings  us  to  150  A.D.,  the 
probable  date  of  the  Peshitta.  At  that  time  the  text 
was  considered  fixed. 

When  we  penetrate  the  period  before  Christ,  serious 
difficulty  is  met  with.  The  Septuagint  and  the  Samari- 
tan Pentateuch  differ  widely  at  many  points  from  the 
Massoretic  text.  Some  have  inferred  from  this  that 
the  text  had  not  received  its  present  traditional  form 
when  the  Septuagint  was  made  or  that  the  Septuagint 
was  taken  from  a  form  of  the  text  which  was  a  rival  of 
that  which  has  come  dowTi  to  us  in  the  Hebrew.  Of 
these  surmises  however  there  is  not  a  particle  of  proof. 
If  there  had  been  a  wide  divergence  among  the  Jews 
on  so  vital  a  matter  as  the  Hebrew  text,  traces  of  their 
discussions  would  doubtless  have  remained.  We  know 
that  the  scribes  "put  a  hedge  about  the  law.^'  They 
counted  the  letters,  verses,  and  sections  and  noted  the 
middle  letter  and  word  of  each  book.  By  these  and 
other  means  they  guarded  the  text  from  corruption. 
These  facts  contrast  markedly  with  the  imperfection 
of  much  of  the  Septuagint  and  the  great  corruption  of 
the  text  of  the  whole.  They  show  how  unwise  it  is  to 
correct  the  Hebrew  according  to  the  Septuagint.  The 
very  fact  that  the  versions  of  Aquila,  Symmachus,  and 
Theodotion  were  thought  necessary  to  remedy  the  de- 
ficiencies of  the  Septuagint,  shows  that  the  Septuagint 
is  far  from  being  a  safe  guide.    These  later  Greek  ver- 


80   OLD  TESTAMENT  INTEODUCTION" 

sions  generally  agree  with  the  Hebrew  against  the 
Septuagint. 

The  Samaritan  Pentateuch  is  far  less  reliable  than 
the  Hebrew  text.  Its  variations  in  different  manuscripts 
and  its  alterations  made  to  uphold  the  Samaritan 
religion  show  how  little  confidence  can  be  placed  in  it. 
Thus  as  far  back  as  we  can  trace  the  Hebrew  text  it  is 
substantially  the  same  as  noWo  It  was  in  the  hands  of 
a  people  who  had  a  superstitious  reverence  even  for  its 
letters  and  who  counted  it  their  highest  distinction  that 
unto  them  were  committed  the  oracles  of  God  (Eom. 
3:2).  Their  scrupulous  care  was  God's  method  of 
keeping  those  sacred  scriptures  in  their  purity. 

Doubtless  a  few  errors  have  crept  into  the  text,  in  the 
spelling  of  proper  names  and  in  numbers.  Green  points 
out  some  of  these  as  indicated  by  parallel  passages 
(p.  U5)  : 

Gen.   10 :  3 compare I  Chron.  1 :  6 

Gen.   10:4 "  I  Chron.  1:7 

Gen  25  :  15 "  I  Chron.  1 :  30 

II  Sam.    8:13 "  I  Chron.  18 :  16 

II  Sam.    8:4 "  I  Chron.  18  :  4 

II  Sam.    24:13 "  I  Chron.  21:12 

I  Kings  4:  26 "  .  .  ..II  Chron.  9  :  25 

II  Kings  8:  26 "  .  .  ..II  Chron.  22:  2 

They  affect  no  vital  part  of  the  scripture.  Furthermore 
the  fact  that  these  apparent  errors  have  not  been  recti- 
fied is  evidence  of  the  great  care  with  which  the  text  has 
been  preserved  since  they  were  made.  They  give  no 
encouragement  for  the  view  that  the  text  became  fixed 
after  it  had  become  corrupt  and  in  its  corrupt  form. 
The  following  principles  for  deciding  between  various 


THE    TEXT  81 

readings  are  valuable :  In  general  a  reading  should  be 
found  which  will  account  for  both  the  varying  forms. 
Since  errors  of  transmission  commonly  tend  to  simplify 
the  text,  rare  words  and  forms  are  more  probably 
original  than  simple  and  usual  ones.  The  practice  so 
common  among  modern  exegetes  of  simplifying  the  text 
when  they  cannot  make  it  yield  a  satisfactory  sense  is 
utterly  unscientific,  because  it  imagines  that  copyists 
have  substituted  rare  and  unfamiliar  forms  for  those 
well  known.  Alteration  of  the  text  is  seldom  justifiable 
and  then  only  after  the  most  careful  study.  The  sub- 
jective element  enters  so  largely  into  the  critical  process 
that  it  should  be  used  only  as  a  last  resort. 


PART  II 

Special  Introduction 


FIRST   DIVISION 

THE    LAW 
I 

preliminary:  the  pentateuch  in  general 

I.  Name.  The  Hebrew  name  for  the  first  division  of 
the  canon  was  ^"V^  "  Law  "  (Josh.  1 :  7),  or  more  fully 
"  the  book  of  the  law  "  (Josh.  8 :  34),  "  the  book  of  the 
law  of  Moses"  (Josh.  8:  31),  "the  book  of  the  law  of 
God  "  (Josh.  24 :  26),  "  the  book  of  the  law  of  Jehovah  " 
(II  Chron.  17 :  9),  "  the  law  of  Moses  "  (I  Kings  2:3). 
Though  '"i?^^  means  from  its  etymology  "  instruction/' 
in  these  and  similar  passages  the  word  is  used  in  its 
usual  and  restricted  sense  of  law.  The  use  of  this  name 
does  not  exclude  the  historical  portions  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. The  entire  book  is  called  "the  law''  because 
legislation  forms  so  large  an  element  in  it.  In  post- 
biblical  times  the  Jews  called  it  "  the  five-fifths  of  the 
law  "  or  simply  "  the  fifths.'' 

In  the  New  Testament  it  is  called  "  the  book  of  the 
law"  (Gal.  3:10),  "the  book  of  Moses"  (Mark  12: 
26),  "the  law  of  the  Lord"  (Luke  2:23),  "the  law 
of  Moses  "  (Luke  2  :  22),  and  "  the  law  "  (Matt.  12  :5). 

The  name  Pentateuch,  nevrdreoxo?  comes  from  the 
Septuagint  version  and  means  "  five-volume  "  properly 
an  adjective  limiting  Bi^Xo?  book.  Many  critics  add 
the  book  of  Joshua  to  the  Pentateuch  and  name  the 
whole  the  Hexateuch  (Article  "  Hexateuch,"  H.  D.  B.). 
"  The  object  of  the  change  of  name  is  to  show  that  the  6 
rather  than  the  5  form  a  complete  literary  whole,  and 

85 


86       OLD  TESTAMEXT  IXTRODUCTIOX 

may  be  looked  upon  as  one  book  in  6  parts."  Since  how- 
ever the  same  sources  are  recognized  by  the  critics  in 
Judges,  Samuel  and  Kings,  these  books  might  also  be 
added.  Indeed  Amljrosius  spoke  of  a  Heptateuch 
(Strack's  "  Einleitung,"  p.  15)  by  adding  Joshua  and 
Judges,  and  the  ancient  Greek  church  of  an  Octateuch, 
adding  Euth.  Xeither  the  history  of  the  books  nor 
their  internal  character  warrants  this  classification. 
"While  Joshua  is  the  continuation  of  the  Pentateuchal 
history,  it  depicts  Israel  in  an  entirely  new  relation  as  a 
nation  settling  in  their  own  land. 

11.    Author. 

1.  Testimony  of  the  Old  Testament.  Though  the 
Pentateuch  does  not  clearly  state  that  it  was  all  the 
work  of  Moses,  several  important  parts  are  assigned  to 
him.  "  And  Moses  wrote  all  the  words  of  Jehovah " 
(Ex.  24:4)  is  thought  to  refer  to  the  book  of  the 
covenant  (Ex.  20-23).  "  And  Moses  wrote  this  law  and 
delivered  it  unto  the  priests,  the  sons  of  Levi"  (Deut. 
31:9).  "And  it  came  to  pass  when  Moses  had  made 
an  end  of  writing  the  words  of  this  law  in  a  book  until 
they  were  finished  that  Closes  commanded  the  Levites, 
which  bare  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  Jehovah  saying 
take  this  book  of  the  law  and  put  it  in  the  side  of  the 
ark  of  the  covenant  of  Jehovah,  your  God,  that  it  may 
be  there  for  a  witness  against  thee"  (Deut.  31 :  24-26). 
These  passages  presuppose  a  considerable  book  and 
though  the  old  view,  that  they  have  reference  to  the 
entire  Pentateuch,  cannot  be  proved,  they  refer  admit- 
tedly (Dillmann)  to  Deut.  5:  5-26  and  indicate  a  con- 
siderable literary  activity  on  the  part  of  Moses. 

The  later  books  of  the  Old  Testament  often  speak  of 
this  book  of  Moses.  The  transaction  at  Ebal  and  Gerizim 


THE  PEXTATEUCH  IN  GENEEAL   87 

presupposes  a  large  book  of  ^Foses    (Josh.   8:30-35). 
(Compare  also  Josh.   1:7-8   and  23:6;  Judges  3:4.) 
David  charged  Solomon  his  son  "  as  it  is  written  in  the 
law  of  Moses  "  (I  Kings  2:3).     (Compare  also  I  Kings 
8:9,  53-56;  II  Kings  14:6;  21:8  and  23:25.)     The 
book  discovered  in  the  time  of  Josiah  is  called  in  II 
Kings  22 : 8  merely  "  the  book  of  the  law,"  but  in  the 
parallel  passage,  II  Chron.  34 :  14,  "  a  book  of  the  law 
of  Jehovah  given  by  Moses"   (notice  also  II  Chron. 
23  :  18 ;  25  :  4 ;  35  :  12) .     Ezra  refers  twice  to  the  book 
of  Moses  (Ezra  3  :  2  and  6 :  18).    In  the  book  of  Nehe- 
miah  we  are  told  that  Ezra  read  in  "the  book  of  the 
law   of   Moses "   "  from   the   morning   until   midday " 
(Neh.  8:1-8),  and  it  is  added,  "also  day  by  day  from 
the  first  day  unto  the  last  day  he  read  in  the  book  of 
the  law  of  God,"  evidently  the  same  book  which  is  called 
elsewhere  "  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses  "  (Neh.  8  :  18) . 
JSTeh.  13:1  also  refers  to  "  the  book  of  Moses."    In  his 
prayer  Daniel  .speaks  of  "the  oath  that  is  written  in 
the  law  of  Moses  the  servant  of  God  "  (Dan.  9  :  11,  13), 
and  near  the  end  of  his  book  the  prophet   Malachi 
writes :    "  Eemember  ye  the  law  of  Moses  my  servant, 
which  I  commanded  unto  him  in  Horeb,  for  all  Israel 
with  the  statutes  and  judgments."     Besides  these  pas- 
sages there  are  many  other  references  to  the  Pentateuch 
which  do  not  mention  the  author  by  name  but  neverthe- 
less bring  the  book  back  to  an  early  date   (II  Kings 
17  :  34,  37 ;  II  Chron.  17:9;  Isaiah  1 :  11 ;  2  :  3 ;  5 :  24, 
25 ;  8  :  20 ;  30 :  9 ;  Hos.  3  :  3 ;  4 :  4,  6,  10 ;  5  :  10 ;  8  :  12 ; 
12:9  and  14:3;  Amos  2:4;  4:4,  5;  5:22;  Mic.  4:2; 
5:  7;  6:  8,  10,  15).    It  is  evident  that  the  assertion  of 
those  who  deny  the  Mosaic  authorship,  that  these  pas- 
sages are  later  glosses,  introduced  in  order  to  strengthen 


88       OLD    TESTAMENT    INTEODUCTIOl^ 

the  claim  of  the  law,  must  be  proved  independently  of 
the  theory  itself  in  order  to  have  weight.  Our  only 
source  of  information  concerning  the  Jewish  tradition 
of  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  in  Old  Testament 
times  is  in  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament  as  we  have  it. 
It  is  unscientific  to  rely  upon  the  accuracy  of  the  record 
when  it  suits  the  theory  and  deny  the  accuracy  of  pas- 
sages which  are  fatal  to  the  theory.  AVhile  the  Old 
Testament  nowhere  distinctly  assigns  its  first  five  books 
as  a  whole  to  Moses,  they  are  everywhere  treated  as  his, 
and  the  Old  Testament  does  not  record  a  single  expres- 
sion of  doubt  on  this  subject. 

2.  Testimony  of  the  New  Testament.  This  agrees 
exactly  with  that  of  the  Old  Testament.  More  than  a 
century  before  Christ  the  Old  Testament  was  complete 
and  was  given  visible  form  in  the  Septuagint  version 
(250-150  B.C.)  with  which  our  Lord  and  the  New 
Testament  writers  exhibit  great  familiarity.  Jesus 
Christ  quotes  passages  of  the  Pentateuch  as  from  Moses. 
"Offer  the  gift  that  Moses  commanded''  (Matt.  8:4; 
compare  Mark  1:44;  Luke  5:14;  Lev.  14:4,  10). 
"  Moses  because  of  the  hardness  of  your  hearts  suffered 
you  to  put  away  your  wives  "  (Matt.  19  :  8 ;  Mark  10 :  5 ; 
compare  Deut.  24:1).  "For  Moses  said,  Honour  thy 
father  and  thy  mother  and,  whoso  curseth  father  or 
mother  let  him  die  the  death"  (Mark  7: 10';  compare 
Exod.  20: 12  and  21: 17).  Our  Lord  could  not  have 
considered  these  passages  merely  as  coming  from  Moses 
while  the  remainder  of  the  Pentateuch  was  from  others, 
for  he  speaks  of  "the  book  of  Moses''  (Mark  12:26; 
Luke  20:  37,  in  reference  to  Ex.  3 :  6)  and  coordinates 
it  with  the  Prophets  as  the  first  great  division  of  the 
Hebrew  scriptures.    In  the  parable  of  the  rich  man  and 


THE   PENTATEUCH   IN   GEJSTEEAL       89 

Lazarus,  Christ  represents  Abraham  as  saying:  "If 
they  hear  not  Moses  and  the  prophets  neither  will  they 
be  persuaded,  though  one  rose  from  the  dead''  (Luke 
16:31).  "All  things  must  be  fulfilled,  which  were 
written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  and  in  the  Prophets,  and 
in  the  Psalms  concerning  me"  (Luke  24:44).  The 
entire  first  division  of  the  Old  Testament  must  have 
been  considered  the  work  of  Moses,  for  when  the  Jews 
quoted  it  as  from  Moses  our  Lord  did  not  contradict 
them  (Matt.  19 :  7 ;  22  :  24 ;  Mark  12 :  19 ;  Luke  20 :  28 ; 
John  9:28-29),  and  when  Christ  referred  it  to  Moses 
they  did  not  contradict  him,  anxious  as  they  were  to 
catch  him  in  his  words.  The  Mosaic  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch  was  evidently  conceded  by  all  Jews  in 
Christ's  time. 

There  are  two  ways  of  meeting  this  testimony  of 
Christ  on  the  part  of  those  who  deny  the  Pentateuch  to 
Moses. 

A.  It  is  said  that  it  was  no  part  of  our  Lord's  work 
to  correct  erroneous  views  on  questions  of  authorship. 
As  Dr.  Briggs  expresses  it :  "  Jesus  was  not  obliged  to 
correct  all  the  errors  of  his  contemporaries.  He  did  not 
correct  their  false  views  of  science.  He  was  the  great 
physician  but  he  did  not  teach  medicine.  He  was 
greater  than  Solomon  and  yet  he  declined  to  decide 
questions  of  civil  law  and  politics"  ("Higher  Criticism 
of  the  Hexateuch,"  p.  29). 

Ansiuer.— This  view  has  the  advantage  of  retaining 
the  divine  knowledge  of  Christ,  but  it  greatly  lowers  our 
conception  of  his  mission.  If  our  Lord  knew  that 
Moses  was  not  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  he  could 
easily  have  quoted  from  those  books  without  mentioning 
Moses'  name  and  still  without  offending  the  Jews   who 


90   OLD  TESTAMEXT  IXTEODUCTIOX 

fondly  believed  that  Moses  wrote  them.  He  uses  other 
formulas  of  quotation  in  other  passages  which  would 
have  served  equally  well.  It  must  not  be  forgotten  also 
that  our  Lord  was  "the  truth"  (Jno.  14:  6)  and  that 
he  described  his  life  mission  to  Pilate  in  these  words: 
"  To  this  end  was  I  born  and  for  this  cause  came  I  into 
the  world,  that  I  should  bear  witness  unto  the  truth  " 
(Jno.  18:  37).  His  mission  was  in  the  religious  sphere 
and  it  was  not  necessary  to  invade  the  domain  of  science 
or  criticism  on  purpose  to  correct  current  errors.  But 
it  was  necessary,  when  he  did  enter  the  critical  sphere, 
to  be  absolutely  true.  Truth  in  the  lower  sphere  was 
essential  to  the  "  faithful  witness  "  in  the  higher  sphere. 
Our  Lord  would  not  have  destroyed  men's  confidence  in 
him  in  religious  matters  by  careless  inaccuracy  in  a  mere 
matter  of  authorship.  Nor  was  the  question  of  author- 
ship so  unimportant  as  the  critics  often  say.  Though 
it  is  the  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testajuent  which  gives  it 
authority,  the  human  author  is  never  ignored.  !More 
than  half  the  Old  Testament  books  are  assigned  to 
authors,  our  Lord  and  the  Apostles  generally  quote  by 
name,  and  the  activity  of  the  modern  criticism  itself 
is  chiefly  concerned  with  this  very  question — a  question 
of  the  most  vital  importance  to  the  scripture  (see  Dr. 
MacPheeters  in  Princeton  Theological  Review,  July  and 
Oct.  1903).  Doubting  Christ  on  these  so-called  minor 
points  is  always  preparatory  to  doubting  him  on  religious 
matters,  as  he  said  to  Nicodemus :  "  If  I  have  told  you 
earthly  things  and  ye  believe  not,  how  shall  ye  believe 
if  I  tell  you  of  heavenly  things?  "  (Jno.  3  :  12). 

B.  The  more  common  way  of  undermining  the  clear 
testimony  of  Christ  to  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch   is   by   asserting   that   he   did   not    know. 


THE    PEN-TATEUCH   IN    GENERAL        91 

"Jesus  and  his  early  disciples  were  Jews  and  as  such, 
shared  to  a  greater  or  less  extent  the  traditional 
opinions  of  their  countrymen.  They  would  naturally 
therefore,  think  and  speak  of  the  Pentateuch  as  the 
work  of  Moses  ^'  ("World  before  Abraham,'^  H.  G. 
Mitchell  p.  14).  As  proofs  of  the  limited  knowledge  of 
Christ  appeal  is  made  to  two  pass^ages.  Christ  declared 
his  own  ignorance  concerning  the  time  of  the  second 
advent.  "  But  of  that  day  and  hour  knoweth  no  man, 
no,  not  the  angels  which  are  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son, 
but  the  Father''  (Mark  13  :  32). 

Answer. — Our  Lord  positively  refused  to  mention  the 
day  and  hour  because  he  did  not  know  them.  Would 
he  not  have  maintained  the  same  silence  concerning 
the  authorship  of  Old  Testament  books  if  here  too  he 
had  been  ignorant? 

The  other  passage  is  Phil.  2 :  7  where  the  apostle  says 
that  Christ  Jesus  "emptied  himself,  taking  the  form 
of  a  servant  being  made  in  the  likeness  of  men." 

Answer. — The  relation  of  Christ's  two  natures  to  each 
other  is  a  theological  rather  than  an  exegetical  question. 
Yet  it  must  be  evident  to  any  reader  of  the  gospels  that 
they  do  not  represent  Christ  as  confined  to  a  merely 
human  knowledge.  He  knew  men's  hearts  (Matt.  27: 
18;  Luke  6:8;  11:17;  Jno.  16:19).  He  saw  Na- 
thanael  beyond  human  sight  (Jno.  1:48).  He  saw  a 
man  carrying  a  pitcher  of  whom  his  disciples  knew 
nothing  (Mark  14: 13;  Luke  22: 10).  He  foretold  his 
own  death  (Matt.  20:17-19),  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem (Matt.  24:1-2)  and  many  other  future  events. 
If  his  contemporaries  were  mistaken  in  supposing  Moses 
the  author,  our  Lord  would  have  known  their  error  and 
corrected  it,  as  he  was  so  quick  to  do  on  other  matters 


92   OLD  TESTAMEXT  INTRODUCTION" 

attacking  their  vain  traditions  without  mercy  (]\Iatt. 
15:2-6;  Mark  7:3-13),  setting  his  "but  I  say  unto 
you"  over  against  the  word  of  "them  of  old  time.'^ 
Furthermore  if  the  Son  of  God  emptied  himself  of  his 
divine  knowledge  and  became  a  mere  man,  we  lose  his 
infallibility,  not  only  on  questions  of  history  but  on 
questions  of  faith.  If  he  was  either  essentially  or  tem- 
porarily merely  a  man,  his  dictum  on  religious  matters 
has  no  greater  authority  than  that  of  a  man.  This 
question  must  be  fought  out  by  the  theologians.  The 
Bible  itself  gives  us  no  encouragement  for  limiting 
the  knowledge'  of  Christ  beyond  his  o\\ti  explicit  lim- 
itation. 

Passing  to  the  testimony  of  the  New  Testament 
writers,  this  too  is  unanimous  for  the  Mosaic  authorship 
of  the  Pentateuch.  It  is  quoted  as  the  work  of  Moses 
(Acts  3  :  22  ;  Pom.  10 :  5,  19 ;  I  Cor.  9:9).  It  is  spoken 
of  in  general  as  "the  law  of  Moses"  (Acts  13:39; 
15  :  5 ;  28  :  23  ;  Heb.  10 :  28)  and  that  Law  was  coordi- 
nated with  the  Prophets  as  one  of  the  great  divisions 
of  the  Hebrew  scriptures  (Acts  26  :  22 ;  28  :  23).  Read- 
ing the  Pentateuch  is  described  as  "  reading "  Moses. 
"  For  Moses  of  old  time  hath  in  every  city  them  that 
preach  him,  being  read  in  the  synagogues  every  Sabbath 
day"  (Acts  15:21).  "But  even  unto  this  day  when 
Moses  is  read,  the  vail  is  upon  their  heart"  (II  Cor. 
3:  15).  The  triumphant  in  heaven  "sing  the  song  of 
Moses  the  servant  of  God  "  (Pev.  15  :  3).  If  Moses  was 
not  at  least  the  author  of  this  song  (Ex.  15),  this 
miserable  falsehood  is  to  be  perpetuated  even  in  heaven, 
but  we  are  told  "  there  shall  in  no  wise  enter  into  it 
anything  that  defileth,  neither  whatsoever  worketh 
abomination  or  maketh  a  lie"  (Rev.  21:27). 


THE  PENTATEUCH  IN  GENERAL   93 

3.  Modern  Critical  View.  Over  against  this  imiform 
testimony  of  scripture  in  unalterable  opposition  stands 
the  view  of  the  modern  negative  criticism.  With  the 
most  radical  of  these  critics  the  New  Testament  testi- 
mony has  no  weight  whatever.  "  We  must  either  cast 
aside  as  worthless  our  dearly  bought  scientific  method, 
or  must  forever  cease  to  acknowledge  the  authority  of 
the  New  Testament  in  the  domain  of  the  exegesis  of  the 
Old''  (Kuenen.  "  Prophets  and  Prophecy/'  p.  487). 
For  the  sake  of  argument  we  are  willing  to  ignore  the 
New  Testament  witnesses  for  the  moment  and  examine 
the  arguments  which  are  presented  against  the  Mosaic 
authorship.  Jean  Astruc,  the  originator  of  the  divisive 
hypothesis,  held  to  the  Mosaic  authorship  but  thought 
that  Moses  used  different  documents  in  Genesis  which 
were  characterized  by  the  divine  names,  Elohim  and 
Jehovah.  His  successors,  however,  have  assigned  the 
various  documents  ip  a  date  much  later  than  Moses,  and 
most  of  them  at  present  deny  that  Moses  was  the  author 
even  of  those  passages  which  are  clearly  assigned  to 
him. 

Their  arguments  are  as  follows :    i 

1.  The  work  of  Moses  "was  not  writing  but  acting, 
establishing  institutions,  and  enkindling  a  new  spiritual 
life."  (Summarized  from  Dillmann  by  Green.  General 
Int.  p.  19.) 

Answer. — -All  that  we  know  of  the  work  of  Moses  is 
derived  from  the  records  of  scripture.  These  represent 
him  not  only  as  a  great  leader  and  legislator  but  as  a 
writer.  He  was  equipped  as  no  other  man  of  his  time 
to  write  the  history  and  legislation  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. 

A.  He    had    the   learning.      Being    brought    up    in 


94   OLD  TESTAMEXT  INTRODUCTION 

Pharaoh's  house  (Ex.  2:10)  he  was  doubtless,  as  Ste- 
phen said,  "  learned  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians  " 
(Acts  7:21).  This  learning  included  the  knowledge 
of  writing,  as  is  now  universally  conceded. 

B.  He  had  the  information  necessary  for  writing  the 
history.  The  Book  of  Genesis  professes  to  record  history 
before  Moses.  If  there  were  -WTitten  records  of  those 
patriarchal  times  kept  by  the  Israelites  in  the  land  of 
Goshen,  ]\Ioses,  the  champion  and  deliverer  of  his  pelbple, 
would  certainly  have  them.  If  these  records  had  been 
kept  in  the  Egyptian  archives  from  the  days  of  Joseph, 
the  prime  minister,  Moses  would  have  had  access  to  them 
in  his  early  manhood.  And  if  these  stories  w^ere  trans- 
mitted by  oral  tradition  in  Israel,  Moses  would  be 
acquainted  with  them.  In  all  the  history  from  Exodus 
to  Deuteronomy,  to  the  time  of  his  death,  he  was  the 
most  prominent  actor  and  could  have  written  it  out  of 
his  own  experience  more  easily  than  any  contemporary, 
who  would  have  been  compelled  to  seek  information  on 
many  points  from  Moses  himself.  He  displays  intimate 
knowledge  of  that  history  in  his  farewell  address  (Deut. 
1-3 ) .  As  to  the  legislation,  Moses'  forty  years'  residence 
at  the  court  of  the  most  highly  civilized  nation  of 
antiquity  was  an  excellent  equipment  to  become  the  great 
Lawgiver  of  Israel. 

C,  He  had  the  time.  The  forty  years  in  Egypt  are 
passed  over  with  scarcely  a  word,  and  the  forty  years  in 
Midian  were  occupied  with  no  more  strenuous  work 
than  tending  the  flocks  of  Jethro,  his  father-in-law. 
Anywhere  in  these  eighty  years  there  was  time  for 
writing  the  book  of  Genesis.  During  the  forty  years 
wandering  in  the  wilderness,  Moses  was  doubtless  busy 
as  the  leader  and  judge  of  the  great  host.    Yet  we  know 


THE    PENTATEUCH    IJST    GENERAL        95 

that  at  the  suggestion  of  Jethro  he  appointed  rulers  in 
each  tribe  to  relieve  hini  of  many  duties  and  only  great 
matters  were  brought  to  him  (Ex.  18:  13-26).  Surely 
Moses  could  have  found  time  in  these  forty  years  for 

.  writing  the  books  of  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers  and 
Deuteronomy. 

*  D.  He  had  the  genius  of  a  writer.  Moses'  life  was 
by  no  means  filled  with  activity.  In  the  forty  years  as 
a  shepherd  he  had  abundant  opportunity  for  meditation 
upon  the  history  of  his  people  and  the  formation  in  his 
mind  of  that  body  of  laws  which  would  govern  them 
when  they  should  leave  Egypt,  which  he  foresaw  must 
soon  occur.  Moses  objected  that  he  was  not  a  "  man  of 
words  "  (Ex.  4 :  10),  but  God  promised  to  equip  him  for 
his  work.  Thus  with  the  meditative  spirit  and  the 
divine  inspiration  he  was  peculiarly  fitted  for  author- 
ship. 

2.  The  argument  from  silence.  This  is  presented  by 
Bacon  in  the  bold  asertion  of  "  the  indisputable  fact 
that  the  history  from  Joshua  to  the  Exile  completely 
ignores  the  Levitical  law"  ("Genesis  of  Gen.,"  p.  38), 
that  the  Book  of  Chronicles  "  rewrites  the  history  of  the 
pre-exilic  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings  omitting  and 
amending  so  as  to  bring  the  history  into  conformity  with 
the  ritual  law  "  (p.  37),  and  further  still,  "  the  first  trace 
of  an  allusion  to  anything  contained  in  the  priestly 
legislation  of  the  Pentateuch,  or  to  the  existence  of  any 
ordinance  of  Moses  concerning  ritual,  will  be  searched 
for  in  vain  throughout  the  writings  of  the  pre-exilic 
prophets"  (p.  40).  This  critic  urges  especially  four 
passages  (Jer.  7:21-23;  Amos  5:21-25;  Micah  6:6-8 
and  Isa.  1:11-15)  as  evidence  against  the  existence 
of  the  ceremonial  laws  in  the  time  of  those  prophets 


96   OLD  TESTAMENT  INTRODUCTION 

or  at  least  against  the  recognition  of  their  Mosaic  author- 
ship and  divine  authority. 

Answer. — A.  The  historical  books  and  the  pre-exilic 
Prophets  are  not  silent  concerning  the  priestly  laws. 
The  references  to  the  law  of  Moses  are  for  the  most 
part  to  Deuteronomy  rather  than  Leviticus,  since  Leviti- 
cus was  intended  for  the  priests  while  Deuteronomy  was 
a  popular  presentation  of  the  law  for  the  whole  people. 
The  historical  hooks  and  the  Prophets  were  intended  for 
the  people  and,  therefore,  referred  to  the  popularized 
form  of  the  law.  The  references  to  Deuteronomy  have 
been  mentioned  in  the  testimony  of  the  later  books  to 
the  Pentateuch.  The  very  existence  of  the  tabernacle 
and,  later,  of  the  temple  implies  the  existence  of  a  code 
of  laws  for  the  guidance  of  the  priests.  Deuteronomy 
was  not  such  a  law,  but  presupposes  such  a  law  as  pre- 
viously existing.  Eeferences  to  Deuteronomy  are,  there- 
fore, indirect  proofs  of  the  existence  of  Leviticus. 
Amos  4:4-5  and  5:21  seem  to  be  direct  references  to 
Leviticus. 

B.  The  comparative  silence  is  due  to  two  causes : 

First.  The  history  of  Israel  is  a  history  of  almost 
constant  apostasy.  The  priests  and  the  people  were 
continually  violating  the  law.  The  silence  of  the  history 
concerning  the  law  no  more  proves  its  non-existence 
than  does  the  frequent  mention  of  lynching  in  our  daily 
papers  prove  that  there  is  no  law  against  it  or  no  law 
except  lynch-law.  Violation  of  the  law  may  be  due 
to  ignorance,  but  it  is  wilful  ignorance. 

Second.  History  does  not  deal  with  questions  of  law 
and  ceremonial.  These  are  introduced  only  incidentally. 
In  times  of  faithfulness  the  silence  of  the  history  implies 
that  the  ceremonies  were  observed  in  the  regular  way. 


THE    PENTATEUCH    IJST    GENERAL        97 

The  history  records  only  the  unusual,  not  the  customary 
and  ordinary  things. 

(7.  The  passages  mentioned  do  not  imply  the  non- 
existence of  the  ceremonial  law  but  are  admonitions 
against  the  exaltation  of  the  ceremonial  above  the  moral 
law.  ^  This  is  shown  by  the  emphasis  laid  upon  the  moral 
law  in  contrast  with  the  ceremonial.  God  would  not 
accept  the  sacrifices  of  his  people  when  their  hands  were 
filled  with  blood  and  their  hearts  cherished  sin.  On 
this  point  Bacon  replies :  "  One  might  indeed  reconcile 
with  a  knowledge  of  the  Pentateuch  utterances  of  the 
prophets  deprecating  the  too  great  regard  paid  to  ritual 
and  urging  as  of  equal  or  greater  importance  the 
'weightier  matters  of  the  law';  but  how  can  it  be  sup- 
posed that  the  authors  of  these  appeals  to  know  when 
and  where  Yahweh  had  ever  authorized  anything  of  the 
kind,  were  aware  of  the  existence  of  a  Mosaic  law,  nine- 
tenths  of  which  were  devoted  to  inculcating  this  very 
thing  in  the  most  explicit  terms  as  of  immediate  divine 
authority  and  with  the  imposition  of  most  fearful  penal- 
ties for  its  neglect"  (pp.  41-42). 

The  reference  is  to  the  first  two  passages.  "For  I 
spake  not  unto  your  fathers  nor  commanded  them  in  the 
day  that  I  brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt  con- 
cerning burnt-offerings  or  sacrifices ''  ( Jer.  7 :  22) .  This 
passage  alludes  to  the  fact  that  the  ceremonial  law  was 
given  after  the  moral  law.  Verse  23  refers  to  the  first 
form  of  God's  covenant  given  soon  after  crossing  the 
Red  Sea  and  before  reaching  Sinai  (Ex.  15 :  26),  whose 
content  was  moral  rather  than  ceremonial — hence  the 
preeminence  of  the  moral  law. 

The  other  passage  is  Amos  5 :  25  ''  Have  ye  offered 
unto  me  sacrifices  and  offerings  in  the  wilderness  forty 


98   OLD  TESTAMENT  IXTEODUCTIOX 

3'ears,  0  house  of  Israel."  This  is  an  allusion  to  a  former 
instance  of  idolatry  to  show  that  in  all  ages  idolatry  was 
Israel's  besetting  sin.  Almost  nothing  is  told  in  the 
Pentateuch  concerning  the  history  of  Israel  after  God 
rejected  that  generation  because  of  their  sin.  During 
thirty-eight  years  and  a  half  they  wandered  in  the  wil- 
derness. But  Moses  said :  "  They  sacrificed  to  devils  not 
to  God  "  (Deut.  32  :  17).  Even  though  the  children  of 
Israel  offered  sacrifices  to  Jehovah  in  the  wilderness,  it 
was  not  really  to  Jehovah  but  an  empty  form,  to  satisfy 
their  own  superstition.  Such  sacrifices  were  an  abomina- 
tion to  God.  It  was  because  the  same  formalism  clung 
to  them  in  the  time  of  Amos  that  God  condemned  their 
service.  Thus  these  passages  contain  no  argument 
against  the  existence  of  the  l^ook  of  Leviticus. 

D.  The  argument  from  silence  is  notably  weak.  As 
is  pointed  out  by  Margoliouth  it  is  based  upon  three 
syllogisms.  "  Had  B  existed  in  the  time  of  the  author 
A,  A  must  have  known  of  B.  Had  A  known  of  B  he 
must  have  mentioned  or  cited  B.  But  A  neither  men- 
tions nor  cites  B.  Therefore  B  did  not  exist  in  A's 
time"  ("Lines  of  Defence  of  Biblical  Eevelation,"  p. 
175).  The  serious  breaks  in  this  argument  are  evident. 
At  a  time  when  l^ooks  existed  only  in  manuscript  it  was 
quite  possible  for  a  l^ook  to  exist  which  was  unknown  to 
another  writer  on  the  same  subject.  Books  became  lost 
or  unknown  far  more  easily  than  to-day.  If  an  edition 
of  a  thousand  or  more  copies  of  a  printed  book  may  be 
lost  in  a  generation  so  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  secure 
one  how  much  more  easily  may  a  few  manuscript  copies 
be  lost  when  the  generation  which  prized  them  is  dead. 
Furthermore  it  does  not  follow  that  a  later  writer  would 
necessarily  mention  an  earlier  if  he  knew  of  his  work. 


THE  PENTATEUCH  IN    GENEEAL   99 

Even  where  no  purpose  for  silence  can  be  discovered  by 
us  after  so  many  centuries,  such  a  purpose  may  have 
existed.  And  a  later  author  may  fail  to  mention  an 
earlier  because  he  had  no  occasion  to  do  so.  (For  a 
notable  instance  of  the  failure  of  the  argument  from 
silence  see  Margoliouth  "  Lines  of  Defence  of  the 
Biblical  Revelation/'  pp.  277-287.) 

4.  Geographical  designations  are  used  which  could 
not  have  been  used  in  the  time  of  Moses.  These  we 
take  up  in  the  order  of  Strack  ("  Einleitung/'  pp. 
24-26). 

A.  "On  the  other  side  of  the  Jordan"  in  reference 
to  the  eastern  side  thus  indicating  the  writer's  stand- 
point in  Canaan  where  Moses  never  was  (Deut.  1:1,  5; 
3:8;  4:41-49). 

Answer. — The  Hebrew  words  are  n"i*_n  "inyn  Accord- 
ing to  us  us  loquendi  these  words  mean  nothing  more 
than  "by  the  side  or  ford  of  the  Jordan,"  without 
designating  which  side.  "iDV  alone  means  side  (I  Sam. 
14:4,  40;  I  Kings  5:4;  Is.  47:15;  Jer.  49:32). 
Other  words  are  necessary  to  indicate  which  side  is 
meant  (Num.  32:19).  It  contains  no  hint  of  the 
writer's  standpoint. 

B.  The  Hebrew  D^  (sea)  is  the  designation  of  the 
west  even  at  the  time  of  Israel's  residence  at  Sinai 
although  the  sea  was  not  west  (Ex.  27:12;  Num. 
2:18;  3:23).  This  supposes  a  residence  in  Canaan 
where  the  sea  was  west. 

Ansiver. — \Ye  know  from  the  Tel-el-Amarna  letters 
that  the  Hebrew  language  was  used  in  Canaan  before 
the  Exodus.  It  may  have  been  carried  down  by  the 
patriarchs  to  Egypt  and  spoken  by  Israel  in  Goshen, 
if  so    D^  would  have  largely  lost  its  original  meaning  and 


100     OLD    TESTAMENT    mTEODUCTION" 

signify  simply  "  west."  Furthermore  the  gulf  of  Suez 
was  west  of  Israel  when  they  were  encamped  at  Sinai 
and  that  gulf  is  called  D^  even  at  its  narrowest  part,  by 
Pi-Hahiroth  (Ex.  14: 1,  16,  21,  23). 

C.  The  name,  Dan,  is  used,  a  name  which  Laish  did 
not  receive  until  after  its  conquest  by  the  Danites  (Gen. 
14:14;  Deut.  34:1). 

Answer. — It  is  not  certain  that  Gen.  14 :  14  refers 
to  Laish.  Perhaps  it  was  another  city  called  Dan.  The 
name  may  have  been  a  common  one  as  the  root,  ^  or 
J?^  found  in  Aramaic  as  well  as  Hebrew  expresses  a 
common  idea,  to  judge  or  rule.  Deut.  34  was  prob- 
ably added  at  a  later  time  since  it  records  Moses* 
death. 

D.  Hormah  is  mentioned,  a  later  name  of  Zephath 
(Num.  14 :  45 ;  Deut.  1 :  44 ;  Compare  Judges  1:17). 

Answer. — The  name  Hormah  (destruction)  was  given 
to  the  region  in  Moses'  time  (Num.  21 :  3).  The  same 
name  was  given  later  to  the  city  of  Zephath  (Judges 
1:17). 

E.  The  trans-Jordanic  region  is  said  to  be  called 
Havoth-Jair  ''unto  this  day"  after  Jair,  the  son  of 
Manasseh  (Deut.  3: 14),  although  it  was  not  named  so 
until  later  (Num.  32 :  41 ;  Josh.  13  :  30 ;  Judges  10 :  4) . 

Answer. — Havoth-Jair  means  "villages  of  Jair." 
Num.  32:41,  refers  to  Jair's  naming  certain  villages 
in  Gilead  after  himself  and  Deut.  3 :  14  to  his  doing 
the  same  in  Bashan.  The  passages  in  Joshua  and 
Judges  refer  to  this  region.  There  is  no  reason  what- 
ever to  identify  the  Jair  of  Judges  with  the  Jair  of  the 
Pentateuch.  The  former  was  probably  a  descendant  of 
the  latter  who  bore  the  same  name  and  ruled  in  the 
same  place. 


THE    PENTATEUCH    IN    GENERAL      101 

Fo  Joseph  said :  "  I  was  stolen  away  out  of  the  land 
of  the  Hebrews''  (Gen.  40:15). 

Ansiver. — The  origin  of  the  word  "Hebrew"  is 
doubtful.  It  may  refer  to  the  people  of  a  certain  locality 
irrespective  of  their  race.  If  the  identification  of  the 
name  with  the  Khabiri  of  the  Tel-el-Amarna  letters  is 
correct,  they  were  a  powerful  tribe  living  in  the  Negeb 
about  1400  B.C.  against  whom  the  king  of  Jerusalem 
had  to  appeal  to  Pharaoh  for  assistance.  This  region 
may  have  been  called  "the  land  of  the  Hebrews;"  at 
any  rate  Abram  is  called  a  Hebrew  (Gen.  14: 13).  He 
was  recognized  as  a  powerful  prince  (Gen.  23:6)  as 
were  also  Isaac  (Gen.  26:13)  and  Jacob  (Gen.  34). 
The  land  where  these  people  had  lived  for  two  centuries 
might  well  receive  the  name  "  the  land  of  the  Hebrews." 
Potiphar's  wife  twice  spoke  of  Joseph  as  a  Hebrew 
(Gen.  39:14,  17). 

4.  Archaeological  indications  of  a  later  date. 

A.  "  The  omer  is  the  tenth  part  of  an  ephah " 
(Ex.  16:36). 

Answer. — These  two  measures  were  known  in  Moses' 
time.  The  omer  is  mentioned  as  a  measure  five  times 
in  this  chapter  and  elsewhere  is  called  |i"it^V  (Ex. 
29  :  40 ;  Lev.  14 :  21 ;  Num.  15:6).  The  ephah  is  men- 
tioned several  times  elsewhere  (Lev.  5:11;  6:20; 
19  :  36 ;  Num.  5:15;  28  :  5 ;  Deut.  25  :  14,  15) .  Since 
the  omer  as  a  measure  is  not  mentioned  outside  of  this 
chapter  (Ex.  16),  the  explanation  is  not  unnatural 
at  the  close.  So  far  as  the  argument  from  this  explana- 
tory note  has  any  force,  it  could  only  prove  that  the 
explanation  was  added  to  the  text  after  Moses'  time 
and  can  have  no  bearing  on  the  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch   as   a   whole.    If,   however,   this   were   an 


102     OLD    TESTAMENT    IXTEODUCTIOX 

explanatory  note,  that  implies  that  the  omer  as  a 
measure  had  gone  out  of  use  and,  therefore,  the  book 
which  mentions  it  must  be  old. 

B.  "Shekel  of  the  sanctuary '^  (Ex.  30:13;  38:24- 
26).  "  This  designation  j^resupposes  that  the  sanctuary 
with  its  cultus  had  already  been  a  long  time  in  exis- 
tence'^  (Strack's  "  Einleitung;'  p.  25). 

Answer. — The  term  "shekel  of  the  sanctuary"  was 
evidently  a  new  one,  for  three  times  its  weight  is  ex- 
plained (Ex.  30:13;  Lev.  27:25;  Num.  3:47).  Its 
use  indicates  nothing  whatever  concerning  the  age  of 
the  tabernacle  or  its  cultus. 

C.  "  Moses  would  hardly  have  spoken  of  Og  king  of 
Bashan,  and  his  iron  bed  as  in  Deut.  3 :  11  in  the  for- 
tieth year  of  the  exodus  since  his  hearers  had  conquered 
and  killed  this  king  in  the  same  year"  (Strack  id.). 

Answer. — The  origin  of  Og  and  the  remarkable  size 
of  his  bedstead  may  not  have  been  known  to  all  the 
people  whom  Moses  was  addressing,  even  though  they 
were  his  conquerors.  At  any  rate  in  reviewing  the 
history  of  Israel  it  was  necessary  to  repeat  many  things 
already  known  to  the  people,  since  the  book  was  meant 
for  future  generations. 

5.  Historical  indications  of  a  kter  date. 

A.  The  poetical  fragment  quoted  from  "  the  book 
of  the  wars  of  Jehovah"  (Xum.  21:14-15)  surely 
arose  from  a  very  ancient  time ;  the  section  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch however  in  which  it  occurs,  can  neither  be  from 
Moses  nor  from  the  time  of  Moses,  for  the  words  are 
quoted  as  proof  that  the  Arnon  formed  the  border  of 
^foab  at  that  time.  Such  a  proof  however  was  super- 
fluous for  the  contemporaries  who  had  just  crossed  the 
Arnon  "  ( Strack,  id. ) . 


THE    PENTATEUCH    IN    GENEEAL      103 

Ansiver. — Moses  was  writing  not  only  for  his  con- 
temporaries, but  for  future  generations  for  whom  this 
explanation  would  not  be  superfluous. 

B.  "The  Canaanites  were  then  in  the  land"  (Gen. 
12:6;  13:7).  This  "then"  surely  indicates  a  time 
after  the  conquest  of  the  land"  (Strack). 

Answer. — This  statement  in  Gen.  12 :  6  is  a  natural 
part  of  the  record.  Without  it  the  reader  in  Moses' 
time  might  have  asked:  Were  the  Canaanites  in  the 
land  when  God  promised  it  to  Abraham,  as  they  are 
now?  The  fact  of  their  presence  adds  to  the  greatness 
of  God's  promise.  In  Gen.  13 :  7  the  same  statement 
is  a  further  explanation  that  there  was  not  room  for 
Abram  and  Lot's  cattle  to  be  together.  In  each  case 
"  then  "  is  in  contrast  with  an  earlier,  not  a  later,  time, 
when  the  Canaanite  was  not  in  the  land. 

C.  "  And  these  are  the  kings  that  reigned  in  the  land 
of  Edom  before  there  reigned  any  king  over  the  children 
of  Israel"  (Gen.  36:31). 

Answer. — There  are  two  distinct  questions — Is  any 
king  mentioned  here  who  was  post-Mosaic?  and  does 
the  statement  before  us  imply  a  writer  at  the  time  of 
the  kings?  Concerning  the  first  question  there  is  no 
necessity  of  considering  any  of  these  eight  kings  post- 
Mosaic.  There  was  a  king  in  Edom  in  Moses'  day 
(Num.  20 :  14),  and  the  strength  of  the  kingdom  implies 
that  it  was  not  new  (Num.  20:  20).  Esau  had  settled 
there  before  the  death  of  Isaac  and  hence  more  than 
430  years  before  the  Exodus  (Ex.  12:41).  If  to  this 
be  added  the  forty  years  in  the  wilderness  we  have  more 
than  470  years  in  which  the  kingdom  of  Edom  could 
have  had  eight  kings  before  Moses  wrote.  On  the  other 
hand  more  than  350  years  must  have  elapsed  between 


104     OLD    TESTAMENT   INTEODUCTION 

the  death  of  Moses  and  the  accession  of  Saul,  the  first 
king  of  Israel  (I  Kings  6 : 1 ;  II  Sam.  5:4;  Acts  13:21; 
Xum.  14:33).  If  the  list  of  eight  kings  mentioned 
here  was  made  in  the  time  of  Saul,  each  one  must  have 
reigned  more  than  forty-five  years.  Hence  it  cannot 
be  the  intention  of  the  writer  to  mention  all  the  kings 
who  reigned  in  Edom  before  there  was  a  king  in  Israel 
but  simply  to  state  that  Edom  had  kings  before  Israel 
had  them.  This  statement  would  have  been  quite  pos- 
sible for  Moses.  Though  there  was  no  king  in  Israel 
in  Moses^  '^  time ''  he  knew  that  Israel  would  have  kings 
from  God^s  promises  to  Abraham  (Gen.  17:  6),  and  to 
Jacob  (Gen.  35 :  11),  from  Jacob's  blessings  upon  Judah 
(Gen.  49  :  10),  and  from  the  prophecy  of  Balaam  (Xum. 
24:  7).  Moses  gave  commands  concerning  the  method 
of  choosing  the  king  and  his  character  (Deut.  17 :  14- 
20).  In  the  passage  before  us  Moses  comments  upon 
the  fact  that  Edom  already  had  had  eight  kings  al- 
though God's  promise  to  his  chosen  people,  the  descend- 
ants of  Jacob,  was  yet  unfulfilled  (See  Green's  "Unity 
of  Genesis,"  pp.  425-9). 

D.  "And  Abraham  called  the  name  of  that  place, 
*  Jehovah  appeared,'  as  it  is  said  to  this  day  in  the 
mount  of  Jehovah  he  shall  be  seen"  (Gen.  22:14). 
It  is  said  that  this  passage  supposes  a  time  after  David 
had  captured  the  temple  mountain  from  the  Jebusites 
since  in  Moses'  time,  Sinai  was  the  mountain  of 
revelation. 

Answer. — Mt.  Sinai  was  not  intended  to  be  a  per- 
manent place  of  revelation.  Moses  knew  that  the  taber- 
nacle was  to  rest  some  day  in  Canaan.  Furthermore 
Moses  is  not  here  giving  a  name  to  the  mountain  but 
recording  the  name  which  Abraham  had  given. 


THE    PENTATEUCH    IN    GENERAL      105 

E.  "If  that  which  is  recorded  in  the  Pentateuch 
about  Moses  and  his  family  is  put  together,  much  is 
lacking  which  one  would  expect  if  Moses  were  the 
author  and  other  things  are  not  arranged  as  they  would 
be  if  such  were  the  case"  (Strack,  p.  26).  The  critics 
specially  emphasized  the  Hebraized  form  of  Moses' 
name,  the  omission  of  the  names  of  the  princess  who 
saved  Moses,  of  the  Pharaohs  of  the  oppression  and  the 
Exodus,  different  names  of  Moses'  father-in-law  (Ex. 
2:18;  3:1;  4:18;  18:1;  Num.  10:29),  the  single 
mention  of  Moses'  Cushite  wife  (Num.  12:1),  the 
silence  concerning  the  death  of  Zipporah  and  the 
statement  concerning  the  meekness  of  Moses  (Num. 
12:3). 

Ansiver. — The  Hebraized  form  of  Moses'  name  is 
exactly  what  we  would  expect  in  view  of  his  being  a 
Hebrew.  The  princess  may  not  have  been  altogether 
ignorant  of  a  language,  probably  spoken  by  many  hun- 
dred thousands  in  her  land  (Ex.  2:10).  The  omission 
of  the  names  of  the  princess  who  saved  Moses  and  of 
the  Pharaohs  with  whom  he  had  to  do  would  be  quite 
natural  in  Moses'  time  as  being  a  matter  of  common 
report.  If,  however,  Exodus  was  written  much  later  than 
Moses  from  the  traditions  of  the  people,  it  is  very 
strange  that  these  names  were  not  supplied.  The  four 
forms  of  the  name  of  Moses'  father-in-law,  Eeuel, 
Eaguel,  Jether,  and  Jethro,  are  evidently  variations  of 
two  forms — one  of  them  perhaps  a  proper  name  and  the 
other  a  title.  The  variation  may  be  due  to  the  difficulty 
of  transferring  the  name  into  Hebrew.  The  redactor 
of  the  Pentateuch,  if  such  there  were,  did  not  think  it 
necessary  to  make  these  names  uniform  and  why  should 
Moses?     We  are  too  far  removed  from  the  time  of 


106     OLD    TESTAMENT    IXTRODUCTION" 

Moses  to  explain  his  silence  concerning  his  first  wife's 
death  and  the  brief  mention  of  his  second  wife,  though 
the  taking  of  this  second  wife  was  not  to  Closes'  credit 
and  he  would  not  therefore  speak  at  length  of  it. 

The  statement  that  Moses  was  preeminently  meek 
(Xum.  12:3)  is  very  appropriate  in  connection  with 
his  persecution  by  Miriam  and  Aaron.  The  word  ren- 
dered meek  is  not  found  elsewhere  in  the  Pentateuch, 
but  the  corresponding  verb  is  used  of  the  afflictions  of 
Israel  in  Egypt  and  of  Pharaoh's  submitting  himself 
to  the  lesson  of  the  plagues  which  Jehovah  sent  (Ex. 
10:3).  This  willingness  to  endure  affliction  patiently 
is  the  attribute  predicated  of  Moses.  The  Psalmists 
did  not  hesitate  to  claim  this  virtue  (Ps.  9:13-14; 
10:  IT)  for  themselves,  and  our  Lord  said  distinctly: 
"  I  am  meek  and  lowly  in  heart "  (Matt.  11 :  28).  That 
Moses  was  meek  the  history  abundantly  shows.  As  a 
faithful  historian  Moses  did  not  conceal  his  own 
faults  and  wrongdoing  (Ex.  4 :  10  ;  INTum.  20  :  12  ;  Deut. 
1:37).  Why  should  he  not  speak  the  truth  about  his 
virtues  as  our  Lord  did?  If  this  argument  against  the 
Mosaic  authorship  is  pressed,  it  can  only  prove  that  this 
verse  was  a  later  insertion,  for  though  an  appropriate 
comment  it  is  not  essential  to  the  record.  Some  one, 
probably  Joshua,  added  the  account  of  Closes'  death  in 
Deuteronomy.  He  may  have  also  added  this  note 
concerning  the  exalted  character  of  the  chief  whom  he 
had  served  so  long. 

F.  The  list  of  the  stations  at  which  Israel  stopped  in 
the  wilderness  (Num.  33)  is  imperfect.  Moses  would 
have  made  it  clear  and  perfect. 

^  nsw;er. —Strack  admits  that  a  fragment  from  IMoses 
may  be  the  basis  of  this  chapter.     According  to  this 


THE    PENTATEUCH    IN"    GENEEAL      107 

argument  this  fragment  of  Moses  must  have  contained 
a  complete  list  of  the  places  where  Israel  stopped.  But 
if  so  how  has  the  present  so-called  imperfect  list  been 
derived  from  Moses'  perfect  list?  It  is  distinctly  said 
that  Moses  made  such  a  list  (Num.  33:  2).  The  diffi- 
culties of  this  chapter  are  not  lessened  by  denying  that 
Moses  wrote  it.  If  IMoses  did  not  write  it,  it  is  a  forgery 
and  it  is  inconceivable  that  a  forger  would  have  left  it 
imperfect.  The  remaining  two  objections  of  Strack 
bear  upon  the  literary  analysis  of  the  Pentateuch  rather 
than  its  authorship  (pp.  26-27). 

4.  Positive  Evidence  of  the  Mosaic  Authorsliip.  Be- 
sides the  direct  testimony  of  the  Pentateuch  itself  that 
Moses  wrote  important  parts  of  it  and  the  uniform 
tradition  indicated  in  the  Old  and  the  New  Testaments 
that  he  was  the  author  of  the  whole,  this  traditional 
view  is  upheld  by  other  considerations. 

(1)  The  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  which  refer  to 
Egypt,  contain  many  marks  of  the  author's  familiarity 
with  that  country,  which  w^ould  have  been  difficult  to 
obtain  in  Canaan  several  centuries  after  Moses. 

A.  Names.  VriS'tpia  (Gen.  41:45;  46:20)  and  the 
shorter  form  IS^toiS  (Gen.  37:  36;  39: 1)  are  Egyptian, 
the  former  meaning  ^^whom  Ea  (the  Sun-God)  gave." 

n:ysi  njav  the  name  which  Pharaoh  gave  Joseph 
(Gen.  41:45)  is  Egyptian  and  means  according  to  the 
Septuagint  (tiottjp  xofffioo,  an  appropriate  name  for  Joseph 
on  account  of  his  deliverance  of  Egypt  in  famine. 

nJDK,  the  name  of  Joseph's  wife,  is  Egyptian  (Gen. 
41 :  45)  and  means  "  favorite  of  Neith." 

|N  (Gen.  41:45,  50;  46:20)  is  the  old  Egyptian 
name  of  Heliopolis. 


108     OLD    TESTAMEN^T    IXTEODUCTIO:Nr 

DDOyn  (Gen.  47:11;  Ex.  1:11;  12:37;  Num.  33:3, 
5)  is  a  well-known  Egyptian  name. 

ohB  (Ex.  1:11)  is  probably  the  Egj^Dtian  Pi-Tum 
which  is  first  mentioned  in  the  monuments  of  the  19th 
dynasty,  exactly  in  accord  with  the  statement  of  Exodus. 

B.  Words,  'il'i^il  (Gen.  41:  45)  is  a  Hebraized  Egyp- 
tian word  (Siegfried  and  Stade.  Hebr.  Worterbuch  and 
Price  in  H.  B.  D.). 

12"^^  (Gen.  42:6).  This  title  of  Joseph  is  found 
elsewhere  only  in  Ecclesiastes,  Ezra  and  Daniel,  books 
which  exhibit  foreign  influence.  Joseph^s  brethren 
called  him  by  the  more  familiar  titles  ''lord  of  the 
land  "  or  "  ruler  "  (Gen.  42  :  30,  33 ;  45  :  8) . 

F?2,  the  divining  cup  of  Joseph  (Gen.  44:  2,  5  etc.). 
The  word  is  found  only  once  outside  of  the  Pentateuch, 
in  Jeremiah  35 :  5.    Jeremiah  had  been  in  Egypt. 

m'^P}^  (Ex.  7:27,  etc.)  and  i'V^a  (Ex.  9:31)  are 
probably  Egyptian  words. 

C.  Customs.  The  marriage  of  eunuchs  is  not  men- 
tioned in  the  Old  Testament  outside  of  Gen.  37 :  36  and 
39 :  1,  which  either  indicates  that  in  Egypt  the  name 
eunuch  was  loosely  applied  to  any  high  officer  of  Pha- 
raoh or  that  in  Egypt  it  was  customary  for  eunuchs  to 
marry. 

The  custom  of  releasing  or  punishing  prisoners  on 
the  king's  birthday  (Gen.  40:20).  The  same  custom 
apparently  existed  at  the  court  of  Herod  (Matt.  14:  6; 
Mark  6  :  21),  but  not  in  Israel. 

Wearing  a  signet  ring  and  a  chain  of  gold  as  a  token 
of  authority  was  unknown  in  Israel  though  it  existed  in 
Egypt,  Persia,  and  Babylon  (Gen.  41 :  42;  Esther  3 :  10, 
12;  8:  2,  8,  10;  Dan.  5:29). 


THE    PENTATEUCH    IN    GENEEAL      109 

The  garments  of  linen  given  to  Joseph  would  have 
been  appropriate  for  a  priest  in  Israel  rather  than  a 
king  or  prime  minister  (Ex.  28 :  39 ;  39  :  27=29). 

The  separation  of  Joseph's  brethren  at  table  from  him 
and  from  the  Egyptians  (Gen.  43:32),  with  the  ex- 
planatory statement,  "  the  Egyptians  might  not  eat 
bread  with  the  Hebrews;  for  that  is  an  abomination 
unto  the  Egyptians.'^ 

The  remark  (Gen.  46:34)  "Every  shepherd  is  an 
abomination  to  the  Egyptians.'^ 

The  author  was  familiar  with  the  land  tenure  of  the 
priests  in  Egypt  (Gen.  47:22). 

The  account  of  the  embalming  of  the  bodies  of  Jacob 
and  Joseph  (Gen.  50:2,  26).  The  word  t3:_n  is 
not  found  elsewhere  in  the  Old  Testament  except  Cant. 
2 :  13.  Also  the  mention  of  the  forty  days  necessary 
for  embalming  (Gen.  50:  3),  and  of  the  sarcophagus  in 
which  Joseph's  body  was  placed.  The  expression  "  unto 
this  day''  (Gen.  47:26)  indicates  a  knowledge  of 
Egypt  later  than  Joseph. 

D.  Geography.  The  writer  knew  the  Egyptian  papy- 
rus (Ex.  2:3)  and  the  character  of  the  Nile  bank  as 
well  as  the  proximity  of  the  sandy  desert  (Ex.  2: 12), 
the  location  of  Eamses,  Succoth  (Ex.  12:37),  Etham 
(Ex.  13:  20)  and  Pi-Hahiroth  (Ex.  14:  2).  An  intimate 
acquaintance  with  geography  is  indicated  by  the  expres- 
sion :  "  The  wilderness  hath  shut  them  in  "  (Ex.  14 :  3) . 
Indeed  chapter  14  is  almost  incomprehensible  without 
a  knowledge  of  Egyptian  geography. 

(2)  The  Levitical  code  of  laws  found  in  Exodus  (20- 
23;  25-31;  35-40),  Leviticus  and  Numbers  (5,  6, 
8-10,  15-19)  exhibits  signs  of  having  been  promulgated 
by  one  in  the  circumstances  of  Moses.    Rawlinson  ("  Lex 


110     OLD    TESTAMENT    IXTEODUCTIOX 

Mosaica,"  pp.   21-26)    presents  the  arguments   in  the 
following  order: 

A.  It  is  primitive.  Professor  Maine  ("Ancient 
Law/'  p.  16)  thinks  that  the  mingling  of  religious, 
civil,  moral  and  economical  ordinances  is  a  clear  proof 
of  great  antiquity. 

B.  It  is  intermittent,  interrupted  by  the  historical 
narrative,  precisely  as  might  be  expected  if  it  was 
composed  during  the  wilderness  wanderings. 

C.  Many  laws  are  suited  only  to  this  migratory  life 
of  the  people — such  as  those  which  relate  to  the  position 
of  the  various  tribes  in  the  camp  and  the  moving  of  the 
tabernacle.    Such  laws  would  have  been  idle  in  Canaan. 

D.  Egyptian  influence.  The  laws  are  sacerdotal, 
sacrificial  and  ceremonial  as  one  would  expect  if  given 
by  Moses  who  was  brought  up  in  Eg}'pt,  where  these 
ideas  had  their  most  perfect  ancient  development. 
Special  indications  of  Egyptian  influence  are  the  triple 
division  of  the  tabernacle,  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  the 
use  of  incense,  the  solemn  assemblies,  the  endowment 
of  the  priesthood  and  the  distinction  between  clean  and 
unclean  meats,  all  of  which  have  their  counterpart  in 
ancient  Egypt. 

E.  The  careful  avoidance  of  certain  Egyptian  relig- 
ious peculiarities.  There  is  no  honorable  mention  of 
the  sun  such  as  is  found  in  the  Psalms  (19 : 4),  and  no 
trace  of  the  Egyptian  doctrine  of  a  future  life,  probably 
to  avoid  the  idolatry  and  superstition  which  were 
connected  with  these  ideas  in  Egypt. 

F.  Signs  of  Midianitish  influence.  The  elders  of  the 
tribes  suggested  by  Jethro  were  a  distinctly  Arabian 
institution— also  the  "blood  feud"  (Ex.  21 :  13 ;  Num. 
35: 11-33) „      These    institutions    were    appropriate    to 


THE    PE^^TATEUCH    IN    GENEEAL      111 

Israel  in  the  wilderness  and  were  retained  in  Canaan. 
They  could  hardly  have  arisen  when  the  people  were 
living  in  towns  and  villages.  The  animals  allowed  to 
be  eaten  include  those  found  in  the  Sinaitie  penin- 
sula— "the  hart,  the  roebuck  and  the  fallow  deer,  the 
wild  goat,  and  the  pygarg  and  the  wild  ox  and  the 
chamois"  (Deut.  14:5). 

In  addition  to  the  points  mentioned  by  Eawlinson, 
Hommel  cites  several  Egyptian  loan-words  in  the 
Levitical  legislation  ("Hebrew  tradition,"  p.  391). 

''T)^    from  the  Egyptian  seta  to  spin. 

nnt    from  Egyptian  tsert,  hand. 

Dypp  from  Eg3'ptian  senham. 

riDpnx  and  Dt^v  names  of  gems,  the  former  equal  to 
Egyptian  el'linome  and  the  latter  to  Egyptian  neshem. 

n^B  and  nnK^Q  from  Egyptian  pesht. 

n2''f<  equal  to  Egyptian  ipt,  borrowed  from  Baby- 
lonian pitu. 

T>}    equal  to  Egj^ptian  Mn,  from  Babylonian  gin. 

Hommel  also  emphasizes  the  Egjrptian  origin  of  the 
high-priest^s  breastplate  (pp.  279-281)  and  the  evi- 
dences of  Midianitish  influence  upon  Moses,  as  seen  from 
ancient  Mingean  inscriptions  (pp.  276-279). 

(3)  Deuteronomy  also  is  appropriate  to  the  time  of 
Moses  but  does  not  fit  the  period  of  Manasseh  or  Josiah 
to  which  it  is  assigned  by  those  who  deny  its  ]\Iosaic 
authorship.  ^^  The  majority  of  critics  believe  this  book 
of  the  law  to  have  been  the  result  of  a  pious  fraud 
promulgated  by  Hilkiah  and  Shaphan  with  the  inten- 
tion of  deceiving  Josiah  into  the  belief  that  the  reforms 
which  they  desired  were  the  express  command  of  God 
revealed  to  Moses  "  (F.  H.  Woods  in  H.  D.  B.  I.  368). 


112     OLD    TESTAMENT    INTEODUCTION 

There  is  a  difference  of  opinion  on  this  subject  among 
the  critics,  for  Evle  says  in  the  same  Bible  dictionary 
(Vol.  1  p.  602-603),  ''The  finding  of  this  book  of  the 
law  in  the  temple  is  described  as  a  fortuitous  occurrence. 
There  is  no  foundaton  for  the  suggestion  that  Hilkiah 
himself  had  written  the  book  and  that  the  story  of  its 
finding  was  a  fabrication.  The  account  is  straight- 
forward and  natural.  It  is  generally  agreed  that  the 
book  may  have  been  written  in  the  reign  of  Manasseh, 
or  in  the  early  part  of  the  reign  of  Josiah."  That 
neither  of  these  positions  is  tenable  is  seen  from  the 
following  considerations. 

A.  The  record  itself  gives  no  encouragement  to  the 
forgery  hypothesis  (II  Kings  22:8,  etc.).  Hilkiah, 
Shaphan,  Huldah,  and  Josiah  seem  all  to  have  con- 
sidered it  an  ancient  book,  the  work  of  Moses. 

B.  Xo  sufficient  motive  for  the  forgery  of  this  book 
either  in  the  time  of  Manasseh  or  Josiah  can  be  cited. 
The  critics  say  the  object  was  to  do  away  with  the  rival 
sanctuaries  and  make  Jerusalem  supreme.  But  the 
only  sanctuaries  which  really  rivalled  Jerusalem  had 
been  swept  away  already  by  the  captivity  of  the  ten 
tribes.  On  the  other  hand  if  this  was  the  object  of  the 
forgery  it  failed,  for  we  are  told:  "  Xevertheless  the 
priests  of  the  high  places  came  not  up  to  the  altar  of 
Jehovah  in  Jerusalem,  but  they  did  eat  of  the  unleav- 
ened bread  among  their  brethren"  (II  Kings  23 :  9). 

C.  There  were  many  persons  in  Judah  who  had 
powerful  motives  for  exposing  this  forgery  if  it  was 
one.  The  wicked  people  whom  the  book  condemned 
would  have  seized  the  opportunity  of  condemning  it  as  a 
forgery.  And  even  if  the  deception  had  not  been  noticed 
in  Josiah's  time,  its  wicked  secret  could  not  have  been 


THE    PEKTATEUCII    IN    GENEKAL      113 

kept  in  the  reactionary  days  of  his  sons.  The  forgery 
hypothesis  requires  two  improbabilities— that  the  author 
was  a  marvelous  genius  and  that  all  the  rest  of  the 
nation  were  fools. 

D.  There  are  many  things  in  Deuteronomy  which  fit 
the  time  of  Moses  and  not  that  of  Manasseh  and  Josiah. 
The  directions  concerning  the  extermination  of  the 
Canaanites  and  the  way  of  dealing  with  the  cities  of  the 
land  would  be  very  strange  in  the  seventh  century  but 
are  quite  natural  in  Moses'  farewell  address  (Deut. 
20:10-30).  The  allusion  to  the  recent  bondage  in 
Egypt  (Deut.  23:7),  to  the  refusal  of  Ammon  and 
Moab  to  furnish  food  to  Israel  in  the  wilderness  (Deut. 
23:4),  to  the  war  with  Amalek  (Deut.  25: 17-19),  all 
argue  for  the  Mosaic  authorship  but  are  inexplicable 
in  the  time  of  the  later  kings.  The  regulations  con- 
cerning the  choice  of  a  king  and  his  duties  (Deut.  17: 
14-20)  could  hardly  have  arisen  four  centuries  after 
the  establishment  of  the  kingdom.  The  standpoint  of 
the  writer  of  Deuteronomy  is  before  Israel  entered 
Canaan. 

E.  The  alleged  differences  of  style  and  contradictions 
between  Leviticus  and  Deuteronomy  are  due  to  differ- 
ence of  standpoint.  Deuteronomy  consists  chiefly  of 
popular  addresses,  while  Leviticus  is  a  codification  of 
the  laws  for  the  use  of  the  priests.  Therefore  Moses  in 
Deuteronomy  used  a  different  style,  omitted  many 
details,  and  emphasized  many  practical  points,  often 
adding  directions  appropriate  to  the  entrance  of  the 
people  into  Canaan. 

(4)  The  fact  that  the  great  intervening  figure  of 
Moses  and  the  extraordinary  events  attending  the 
Exodus  did  not  obscure  the  figures  of  the  patriarchs  in 


lU  OLD  TESTAMEXT  IXTEODUCTIOX 

the  national  consciousness  of  Israel  is  strong  evidence 
that  those  figures  were  real  ("Xeueste  Prinzipien" 
Konig,  pp.  73-T4).  Great  as  Moses  was  in  the  mind  of 
Israel  his  God  is  said  to  be  the  God  of  Abraham,  of 
Isaac,  and  of  Jacob,  and  these  great  names  of  the 
fathers  could  not  be  blotted  out  of  the  memory  of  Israel 
even  by  far  more  remarkable  events  in  the  time  of 
Moses.  This  fact  argues  for  the  Mosaic  authorship  of 
Genesis  indirectly  since  the  vividness  of  the  stories  of 
Genesis  implies  an  early  date. 

5.  Summary  of  Arguments  concerning  Authorship. 
We  have  seen  that  the  uniform  testimony  of  the  Penta- 
teuch itself  favors  the  view  that  Moses  wrote  it.  This 
opinion  was  held  without  a  dissenting  voice  by  all  the 
writers  of  the  Old  and  Xew  Testaments  and  by  the 
Jewish  nation  and  our  Lord  himself.  We  have  weighed 
the  arguments  of  modern  criticism  against  this 
view  and  found  them  wanting.  ^Ye  have  further 
found  much  indirect  testimony  that  Moses  was  the 
author  in  three  large  sections:  (1)  Gen.  39  to  Ex.  14; 

(2)  The  Levitical  code  including  all  the  book  of 
Leviticus  and  large  parts   of  Exodus   and  Xumbers; 

(3)  The  book  of  Deuteronomy.  There  remains  one 
argument  against  the  Mosaic  authorship  which  it  has 
seemed  best  to  consider  by  itself,  since  it  affects  not 
only  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  but  its  integrity 
and  credibility,  viz.,  the  argument  from  the  alleged 
composite  nature  of  these  books. 

III.  Composition.  Five  successive  stages  of  the 
modern  divisive  criticism  of  the  Pentateuch  are  dis- 
tinguished by  Green  (H.  C.  of  Pent.  pp.  61-88). 

1.  The  document  h}'pothesis — that  Moses  used  earlier 
documents  in  Genesis  which  were  characterized  by  the 


THE    PENTATEUCH    IX    GENEEAL      115 

use  of  different  divine  names,  Jehovah  and  Elohim. 
This  was  maintained  by  Jean  Astruc  (1753),  Vitringa, 
Eichhorn  and  others.  This  principle  of  division  was 
later  applied  to  the  other  books  of  the  Pentateuch  in 
dependence  upon  Ex.  6:3  and  all  were  made  post- 
Mosaic. 

2.  The  fragment  hypothesis— that  the  Pentateuch  is 
composed  of  thirty  or  more  fragments  altogether  inde- 
pendent of  each  other.  This  view  represented  by  Vater 
(1805),  Hartman  (1831)  and  others  did  not  long  find 
favor.  It  is  the  reductio  ad  absurdum  of  the  document 
hypothesis. 

3.  The  supplement  hypothesis— a  new  form  of  the 
document  hypothesis,  by  which  the  Elohist  prepared  a 
complete  history  and  the  Jehovist  added  to  it,  making 
occasional  alterations  of  his  own.  This  view  was 
represented  by  Bleek,  Tuch,  Stahelin,  De  Wette,  and 
Knobel. 

4.  Crystallization  hypothesis— a  modification  of  the 
last  suggested  by  Ewald  and  Hupfeld,  which  increases 
the  number  of  those  who  supplemented  the  history  and 
asserts  that  they  operated  at  different  periods.  It  is 
the  reductio  ad  ahsurdum  of  the  supplement  hypothesis. 

5.  Modified  document  hypothesis,  which  differs  from 
the  original  document  hypothesis  by  asserting  that  the 
Jehovist  was  a  continuous  and  independent  document. 
This  view  is  current  to-day  and  is  represented  with 
minor  variations  by  Graf,  Wellhausen,  Kuenen,  Corn- 
ill,  Driver,  Cheyne,  Haupt,  Briggs  and  many  others. 

It  distinguished  five  documentary  sources  of  the 
Hexateuch. 

P.  The  priestly  document.  This  is  considered  the 
fundamental   document  of  the  Pentateuch,   called  by 


116     OLD    TESTAMENT    INTEODUCTION 

Ewald  "  the  book  of  origins/'  by  Hupf eld  "  the  first  or 
older  Elohist,"  and  by  Dillmann  A.  Driver  thus  char- 
acterizes this  document :  "  Its  language  is  that  of  a 
jurist,  rather  than  a  historian;  it  is  circumstantial, 
formal  and  precise :  a  subject  is  developed  systematically; 
and  completeness  of  detail  even  at  the  cost  of  some 
repetition  is  regularly  observed.  Sentences  are  cast 
with  great  frequency  into  the  same  mould ;  and  particu- 
lar formulas  are  constantly  repeated,  especially  such  as 
articulate  the  progress  of  the  narrative.  The  attention 
paid  by  the  author  to  numbers,  chronology  and  other 
statistical  data,  will  be  evident"  (Driver's  I.  L.  0.  T. 
p.  12).  P.  includes  about  one-half  of  Genesis,  the 
greater  part  of  Exodus,  all  of  Leviticus,  the  greater 
part  of  Numbers  and  a  few  pieces  at  the  beginning 
and  end  of  Deuteronomy,  besides  several  large  sections 
of  Joshua.  It  includes  the  so-called  Law  of  Holiness 
(Lev.  17-26)  which  is  denominated  H  (or  by  Dillmann 
S,  as  the  law  given  at  Sinai)  and  is  considered  by  many 
older  than  the  remainder  of  P. 

E.  Elohist,  which  begins  surely  Gen.  20  and  per- 
haps 15  :  2 — called  by  Hupf  eld  "  the  second  or  younger 
Elohist,"  by  Ewald  "the  third  writer,"  by  Schrader, 
"the  theocratic  writer,"  and  by  Dillmann  B  or  "the 
Israelish  book  of  legends."  Critics  generally  agree  that 
E  was  a  native  of  the  Northern  Kingdom. 

J,  Jahvist.  Called  by  Tuch  "the  supplementer," 
by  Ewald  "the  fourth  writer,"  by  Schrader  "the 
prophetic  writer,"  and  by  Dillmann  C.  Belonged  to 
the  Southern  Kingdom  and  was  vivid  in  his  delineation 
of  character  and  anthropomorphic  in  his  conception  of 
God. 

D,     Author  of  the  greater  part  of  Deuteronomy. 


THE    PEXTATEUCH    IN    GENERAL      117 

In  regard  to  the  dates  of  these  various  documents  the 
common  view  is  thus  expressed  by  Mitchell :  "  The 
conclusion  reached  with  respect  to  the  age  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, then,  is,  that  J  originated  about  850  and  E  about 
800  B.C. ;  that  the  two,  having  been  more  or  less  revised 
and  enlarged  were  united  into  a  composite  document 
before  639  B.C.;  that  D,  which  was  discovered  in  621 
B.C.  but  must  have  been  written  some  time  before  and 
revised  in  the  reign  of  Manasseh,  was  incorporated  with 
J  E,  early  in  the  Captivity ;  and  that  the  Pentateuch 
was  practically  completed  by  the  addition  of  P,  a  prod- 
uct of  the  first  half  of  the  fifth  century  B.C.  before  444, 
if  not  before  458,  the  date  of  Ezra's  appearance  in 
Palestine  "  ("  The  World  before  Abraham,"  p.  63) .  The 
more  conservative  critics  however,  such  as  Dillmann, 
Kittel,  and  Baudissin  place  P.  before  the  Exile  and 
the  last  named  writer  affirms  that  although  J  E  is  evi- 
dently a  composite  document,  J  and  E  cannot  be  sepa- 
rated with  as  great  certainty  as  can  J  E  be  separated 
from  P.  The  general  characteristics  of  J  and  E  are, 
however,  plain.  As  Driver  expresses  it:  "J  if  he 
dwells  less  than  E  upon  concrete  particulars,  excels  in 
the  power  of  delineating  life  and  character.  His  touch 
is  singularly  light,  with  a  few  strokes  he  paints  a  scene 
which  before  he  has  finished,  is  impressed  indelibly 
upon  his  reader's  memory.  His  dialogues  especially 
(which  are  frequent)  are  remarkable  for  the  delicacy 
and  truthfulness  with  which  character  and  emotions 
find  expression  in  them"  (L.  0.  T.  p.  119).  It  is 
clearly  to  be  understood  that  these  several  documents 
are  said  to  have  circulated  as  independent  books  for 
a  long  time  before  they  were  brought  together.  They 
were  brought  together  by  editors  or  redactors,  commonly 


118     OLD    TESTAMENT    INTRODUCTION" 

called  E,  who  are  said  to  have  made  occasional  altera- 
tions and  additions  of  their  own.  On  this  point  Dill- 
mann  says :  '^  The  further  question  still  arises  as  to 
whether  the  three  documents  A,  B,  C  [P.  E.  J.],  have 
been  wrought  up  by  one  or  by  several  redactors  (R.)- 
Formerly  the  former  hypothesis  was  the  prevalent  one. 
Recently,  it  has  been  contested  by  all  who  hold  A  [P] 
to  be  the  latest  document  in  the  Hexateuch  and  post- 
exilic  and  it  is  maintained  rather  that  B  [E.]  and  C 
[J.]  after  each  of  them  separately  had  passed  through 
several  enlarged  editions,  were  at  length  combined  and 
that  at  a  later  period  by  yet  another  hand  they  were 
joined  to  D  before  a  final  redactor  wrought  A  [P]  into 
this  composite  work"  (Dillmann's  Genesis  p.  19). 

The  arguments  by  which  the  composite  authorship 
of  the  Pentateuch  is  supported  we  will  take  singly  and 
attempt  to  answer  them. 

1.  The  use  of  the  divine  names.  This  was  the  phe- 
nomenon which  drew  Astruc  to  the  conclusion  that 
Moses  used  different  documents  in  Genesis,  character- 
ized respectively  by  the  divine  names,  Jehovah  and 
Elohim.  Later  it  was  claimed  that  Ex.  6 :  3  must  have 
been  written  by  an  author  (P)  who  had  not  thus  far 
used  the  name  Jehovah,  therefore  not  the  author  of  the 
entire  book  of  Genesis. 

Answer. — A.  This  argument  ignores  the  etymology 
of  the  names  of  God  and  conceives  of  them  as  used 
interchangeably  merely  as  a  matter  of  habit.  It  is  not 
claimed  by  the  critics  that  J  was  ignorant  of  the  name 
Elohim  or  P  and  E  of  the  name  Jehovah,  but  that  each 
preferred  one  of  these  names.  But  if  so,  the  question 
remains,  why  did  J  prefer  the  name  Jehovah  and  E 
and  P  the  name  Elohim.     To  this  important  question 


THE    PENTATEUCH    IN    GENEEAL      119 

the  divisive  hypothesis  gives  no  satisfactory  answer. 
If  the  Pentateuch  however  be  the  work  of  one  author, 
the  use  of  these  names  is  sufficiently  clear.  It  is  pre- 
cisely that  which  the  so-called  characteristics  of  P,  J 
and  E,  require.  P  is  said  to  be  cold,  formal,  systematic, 
logical;  but  it  is  precisely  in  such  passages  that  one 
would  expect  Elohim,  the  general  name  for  God,  the 
name  which  has  no  special  relation  to  Israel  but  is  used 
many  times  in  reference  to  the  deities  of  the  Gentiles. 
J  on  the  other  hand  is  said  to  be  naive,  anthropomorphic 
in  his  conception  of  God;  but  these  evidences  of  relig- 
ious fervor  would  lead  us  to  expect  the  proper  national 
name  of  God,  the  namfe  which  emphasized  his  covenant 
relations  with  Israel.  There  are  passages  in  which  we 
cannot  explain  why  one  name  of  the  deity  is  used  rather 
than  another  but  in  the  great  majority  of  cases,  any 
other  name  would  be  inappropriate.  That  these  names 
are  carefully  used  in  their  proper  place  has  been  shown 
by  Hengstenberg  and  more  recently  by  Green  who  says : 
"  The  divisive  hypothesis  can  give  no  reason  why  the 
Elohist  rather  than  the  Jehovist  should  have  given  an 
account  of  the  creation  of  the  world  and  all  that  it 
contains ;  nor  why  the  Jehovist  rather  than  the  Elohist 
should  have  described  the  beginnings  of  God's  earthly 
kingdom  in  man's  primeval  condition  and  the  mercy 
shown  him  after  his  fall;  nor  why  the  Elohist  never 
speaks  of  an  altar  or  sacrifice  or  invocation  or  any  act  of 
patriarchal  worship — nor  why  Elohim  regularly  occurs 
when  Gentiles  are  concerned,  unless  specific  reference 
is  made  to  the  God  of  the  patriarchs.  All  this  is  purely 
accidental  on  the  divisive  hypothesis.  But  such  evident 
adaptation  is  not  the  work  of  chance.  It  can  only 
result  from  tlae  intelligent  employment  of  the  divine 


120     OLD    TESTAMENT    INTEODUCTION 

names  in  accordance  with  their  proper  meaning  and 
recognized  usage''  ("Unity  of  Genesis/'  pp.  547-8). 

B.  In  order  to  substantiate  this  alleged  dual  use  of 
the  divine  names  it  is  necessary  to  do  violence  to  the 
text.  Elohim  occurs  in  sections  belonging  to  J  (Gen. 
7:9;  33 :  5,  11  etc.)  and  Jehovah  in  sections  belonging 
to  P  (Gen.  7:16;  14:22;  17:1;  20:18;  Ex.  18:  six 
times).  The  critics  rend  apart  Gen.  21:1-2;  22;  Ex. 
19:24;  Num.  22-24,  and  other  passages  to  make  the 
text  fit  the  theory.  Sometimes  they  sweep  aside  diffi- 
culties by  asserting  that  R  altered  the  name,  at  others 
that  the  text  is  evidently  corrupt.  Neither  of  these 
suppositions  however  has  any  basis  outside  of  the  exi- 
gencies of  the  hypothesis.  The  hypothesis  is  said  to 
be  derived  from  the  phenomena  of  the  text,  as  we  have 
it;  but  if  those  phenomena  do  not  suit  the  hypothesis, 
they  are  rejected  as  worthless.  May  we  not  reasonably 
ask :  If  the  text  is  corrupt  how  can  we  trust  the  hypoth- 
esis which  is  derived  from  it?  The  very  existence  of 
R  and  several  E's  is  a  baseless  assumption  made  neces- 
sary by  the  difficulties  of  the  divisive  hypothesis. 

C.  The  fact  that  the  critics  soon  found  it  necessary 
to  divide  the  Elohist  into  two — the  first  Elohist,  P,  and 
the  second  Elohist,  E — and  that  many  of  them,  while 
asserting  the  composite  character  of  J  E  consider  it 
very  difficult  to  separate  E  from  J  is  evidence  that  the 
use  of  these  names  is  a  very  uncertain  criterion  by  which 
to  analyze  the  Pentateuch.  If  this  test  alone  cannot 
distinguish  P  from  J  E,  nor  E.  from  J.  it  may  as  well 
be  abandoned. 

D.  The  passage  Ex.  6 : 3  cannot  possibly  mean  that 
its  author  was  hitherto  ignorant  of  or  did  not  use  the 
name  Jehovah.    There  God  said  to  Moses  "  I  appeared 


THE    PENTATEUCH    IN    GENEEAL      121 

unto  Abraham,  unto  Isaac  and  unto  Jacol3  by  the  name 
of  God  Almighty  (''!|K>  ?^)  but  by  my  name  Jehovah 
was  I  not  known  unto  them." 

"VYe  notice:  (1)  The  name  Jehovah  is  not  here  dis- 
tinguished from  Elohim  but  from  El  Shaddai,  a  name 
which  in  Genesis  is  used  only  five  times  (Gen.  17: 1; 
28:3;  35:11;  43:14;  48:3)  while  Elohim  is  used 
more  than  two  hundred  times.  The  name  El  Shaddai, 
is  selected  in  Ex.  6 :  3  evidently  because  it  emphasized 
certain  attributes.  But  if  the  expression  in  the  first 
part  of  the  verse  does  not  mean  that  El  Shaddai  was  the 
name  by  which  the  patriarchs  usually  spoke  of  God, 
neither  can  the  expression  in  the  last  part  of  the  verse 
mean  that  the  patriarchs  did  not  know  the  name 
Jehovah. 

(2)  The  redactor  of  the  Pentateuch,  if  such  there 
were,  could  not  have  considered  the  statement  of  Ex. 
6 :  3  inconsistent  with  the  frequent  use  of  the  name 
Jehovah  by  the  patriarchs.  Otherwise  he  would  either 
have  changed  the  statement  in  Exodus  or  the  name 
Jehovah  in  Genesis.  The  many  generations  of  Jews 
and  Christians  who  were  ignorant  of  the  composite 
authorship  of  Genesis  also  saw  nothing  difficult  in 
Ex.  6:3. 

(3)  The  context  of  the  passage  and  the  usus  loquendi 
of  the  expression,  "to  know  the  name"  show  clearly 
that  the  meaning  is  to  have  an  experimental  knowledge 
of  the  attributes  emphasized  by  the  name.  Accordingly 
the  etymology  of  the  name  was  told  to  Moses  (Ex.  3  :  14- 
15)  the  covenant  connected  with  it  is  described  (Ex. 
6 :  4-8)  and  it  is  constantly  repeated  (Ex.  6  :  7,  8 ;  10 :  2 ; 
16:12;  29:46,  etc.).  The  word  to  know  in  the  Old 
Testament  generally  includes  the  idea  of  apprehension 


122     OLD    TESTAMENT    INTRODUCTION" 

and  the  expression  "  to  know  the  name  of  Jehovah  "  is 
used  many  times  in  this  fuller  sense  of  apprehending 
the  divine  attributes  (I  Kings  8 :  43 ;  Ps.  9  :  11 ;  91 :  14 ; 
Is.  52 :  6 ;  64 :  1 ;  Jer.  16:21;  Ezek.  39 :  6-7) .  All  this 
shows  the  meaning  to  be  that  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob 
knew  God  as  a  God  of  power  but  not  as  the  God  of  the 
covenant.  Whether  the  name  of  Jehovah  was  in  exist- 
ence before  Moses,  Ex.  6 :  3  does  not  say — merely  that 
its  significance  was  not  appreciated.  Possibly  Moses 
introduced  the  name  so  familiar  and  precious  in  his 
time,  into  the  earlier  records.  It  is  much  more  likely 
however  both  from  the  archaic  form  of  the  name  and 
its  possible  identity  with  the  Assyrian  Jahu  that  the 
name  was  known  to  the  patriarchs.  As  the  rainbow 
long  seen  in  the  sky  was  given  new  meaning  in  the  days 
of  Noah,  so  the  name  Jehovah  familiar  to  oppressed 
Israel  became  the  pledge  of  the  divine  covenant. 

2.  Other  words  said  to  be  peculiar  to  the  several 
documents.  It  is  said  that  P,  J,  E  and  D  each  has  a 
vocabulary  of  his  own.  Driver  gives  a  long  list  of  words 
peculiar  to  P  (L.  0.  T.  pp.  131-5)  and  Strack  does  the 
same  for  all  the  sources  adding  a  short  list  of  cases  where 
one  and  the  same  idea  is  differently  expressed  in  the 
different  documents  ("  Einleitung,^^  pp.  43-53). 

Answer. — A.  Of  course  the  argument  has  no  weight 
unless  the  word  or  expression  is  one  which  both  writers 
had  occasion  to  use.  Many  of  the  words  in  Driver's  list 
are  confined  to  P  because  neither  J,  E,  nor  D  had 
occasion  to  use  them. 

B.  Where  P  uses  one  synonjTn  and  J  E  another,  it 
is  sometimes  possible  to  see  a  good  reason  for  the  choice 
in  the  character  of  the  discourse.  Thus  P  and  D  use 
Hvin    the  more  accurate  expression  while  J  uses    ^P^ 


THE    PEXTATEUCH    IX    GENERAL      123 

because  accuracy  was  essential  in  the  parts  of  the 
Pentateuch  assigned  to  P  and  D.  P  and  J  use  the 
name  Sinai,  one  of  the  three  peaks  of  the  mountain, 
while  E  and  D  speak  in  a  general  way  of  Horeb,  the 
name  of  the  whole  mountain.  In  the  former  case 
definiteness  was  important  (Ex.  16:1)  in  the  latter 
not  (Ex.  17:6;  Deut.  1:2). 

No  continuous  narrative  ever  displayed  more  un- 
mistakable marks  of  unity  than  the  story  of  hardening 
Pharaoh's  heart  (Ex.  4:21  to  14:8).  Its  progress 
must  impress  every  careful  reader.  Yet  because  P  and 
E  use  the  expression  p^n  to  harden  the  heart  and  J 
uses  n^33n  the  whole  story  is  dissected  by  the  critics  and 
its  meaning  lost.  These  words  are  used  with  remarkable 
precision  as  the  record  lies  before  us. 

(1)  From  the  divine  side.  First  God  made  Pharaoh's 
heart  strong  (P^n)  then  obdurate  (^K?i:?^?)  then  heavy 
(W33n  ). 

(2)  From  the  human  side.  The  condition  of  Pha- 
raoh's heart  and  his  action  in  hardening  it  alternate 
throughout  the  record.  This  arrangement  is  destroyed 
by  the  analysis : 

Exodus  7 :  13 p  T  n  n Condition  P. 

"        8:  11 "123^ Action  J. 

8  :  15 prnn   Condition  P. 

"        8:28 *l2Dn Action  J. 

"        9:7 "IS^n Condition  J. 

''       9  :  34 in^^J Action  J. 

"       9:35 pT n n Condition  P. 

Other  examples  might  be  mentioned  l)ut  these  suffice 


124     OLD    TESTAMENT    INTEODUCTIOJST 

to  show  that  th^  analysis  of  the  Pentateuch  is  in  direct 
violation  of  the  usage  of  words  throughout  the  Old 
Testament.  In  cases  where  we  cannot  see  the  reason 
for  the  choice  of  a  word,  it  does  not  follow  that  there 
was  no  reason.  It  is  quite  conceivable  that  a  writer 
would  use  one  expression  habitually  in  a  certain 
connection  and  a  synonymous  expression  in  another 
connection. 

C.  The  claim  of  a  distinct  vocabulary  for  P  and 
J  E  can  be  maintained  only  by  mutilating  the  record. 
If  an  expression  usually  found  in  P  occurs  in  a  J  E 
section,  the  chapter  and  sometimes  even  the  verse  is 
divided.  If  narratives  were  left  entire  except  in  case 
of  an  expression  which  might  be  a  later  gloss,  the 
argument  would  be  much  weakened.  By  this  method 
any  literary  work  could  be  divided  into  several  sources, 
more  or  less  complete  (The  analysis  of  the  Parable  of 
the  Good  Samaritan  and  the  Prodigal  Son  in  Green's 
H.  C.  of  Pent.  pp.  119-123  and  "Eomans  Dissected'' 
byE.  D.  McRealsham). 

3.  It  is  claimed  that  there  are  parallel  accounts  of 
the  same  event — such  as  two  accounts  of  the  creation, 
two  stories  of  the  flood,  two  records  of  the  call  of  Moses, 
etc. 

Answer. — These  accounts  are  not  really  parallel. 
Some  of  them  are  merely  similar  events,  as  the  two 
instances  in  which  Abraham  lied  concerning  his  wife 
and  the  same  action  by  Isaac.  The  redactor  must  have 
considered  these  quite  distinct.  In  other  cases  there  is 
a  repetition  from  a  different  standpoint,  as  the  account 
of  the  creation  in  Genesis  2  is  from  the  standpoint  of 
the  God  of  revelation  and  providence.  Sometimes  the 
repetition  is  a  characteristic  of  Hebrew  style,  which 


THE    PENTATEUCH   IN    GENERAL      125 

often  makes  a  general  statement  by  way  of  introduction 
and  then  enlarges  upon  it.  Thus  Gen.  28 :  5  states 
briefly  Jacob's  departure  for  Padan  Aram  as  introduc- 
tion to  the  fuller  account  of  his  journey  (Gen.  28: 10 
to  29: 13).  (Other  examples:  Green's  H.  C,  of  Pent, 
pp.  111-112.)  Concerning  the  two  stories  of  the  flood 
Ewald  says :  "  The  story  of  the  flood  shone  as  a  gleam- 
ing star  before  all  others  on  the  horizon  of  the  Jehovistic 
and  Elohistic  documents  "  ( Quoted  by  Rupprecht,  "  Das 
Eatsel  des  Fiinfbuches  Mose/'  p.  44).  Yet  the  critics 
have  been  unable  to  extract  two  records  of  the  flood 
even  tolerably  complete.  The  beginning  of  chapter 
seven  is  assigned  to  J.  If  so,  we  are  told  by  J.  that 
God  commanded  Noah  to  come  with  all  his  house 
into  the  ark,  without  telling  a  word  about  the  building 
of  the  ark  or  the  members  of  Noah's  family.  Chapter 
seven  needs  precisely  the  statement  of  Chap.  6 :  9-22  to 
make  it  complete  or  comprehensible.  Gen.  8:13  says : 
"  And  Noah  removed  the  covering  of  the  ark  and  looked 

and  behold  the  face  of  the  ground  was  dry ^"      This 

is  assigned  to  J  but  not  another  word  of  J  is  recorded 
till  verse  20  where  we  read:  "And  Noah  builded  an 
altar  unto  the  Lord."  This  serious  gap  is  bridged  by 
the  intervening  statements  which  the  critics  assign  to 
P.  Furthermore  Gen.  9:1-17  (P)  is  not  a  useless 
repetition  of  Gen.  8 :  21-22  (J)  but  an  enlargement  of 
God's  covenant  with  Noah  after  he  had  built  the  altar 
to  Jehovah  and  recommenced  his  life  upon  earth.  The 
so-called  two  stories  of  the  flood  need  each  other  to 
form  a  complete  record.  It  is  also  significant  that  the 
cuneiform  story  of  the  flood  does  not  follow  either  one 
or  the  other  document  but  contains  both  in  much  the 
same  order  as  Genesis  (J.  D.  Davis,  "  Genesis  and  Sem- 


126     OLD    TESTAMENT    INTRODUCTION 

itic  Tradition/'  pp.  128-9).  A  careful  study  of  the 
alleged  doublets  reveals  the  fact  that  the  two  accounts 
have  their  justification  in  the  mind  of  the  editor.  At 
any  rate  it  is  inconceivable  that  the  Eedactor  of  the 
Pentateuch  could  have  considered  them  as  idle  repeti- 
tions. He  must  have  seen  in  them  some  difference  of 
viewpoint  to  justify  their  retention  in  the  book. 

4.  We  are  told  that  there  are  contradictions  in  these 
parallel  accounts — that  they  do  not  harmonize  with 
each  other. 

Answer. — It  is  noteworthy  that  the  most  difficult  of 
these  contradictions  are  found  in  Genesis  where  Moses 
was  dependent  either  on  ancient  records  or  oral 
tradition. 

(1)  Thus  according  to  Gen.  7: 12,  17;  8:  6,  10,  12; 
the  flood  lasted  54  days  and  according  to  Gen.  7 :  24  it 
lasted  150  days.  It  is  apparent  to  any  fair-minded 
reader  that  the  forty  days  of  Gen.  7: 12,  17  and  8:6; 
do  not  mark  the  total  duration  of  the  flood  but  of  the 
rain  itself. 

(2)  Three  explanations  of  the  name  Isaac  are  said 
to  be  given  (Gen,  17:17;  18:12;  21:6).  These  ex- 
planations how(?\^er  are  not  mutually  exclusive.  It  is 
quite  natural  that  the  child  should  be  called  Isaac 
(laughter)  because  both  his  father  and  mother  laughed 
in  incredulity  at  the  thought  of  his  birth  and  that  in 
view  of  his  name  his  mother  laughed  with  joy  after  his 
birth. 

(3)  Again  the  critics  insist  that  those  who  sold 
Joseph  into  Egypt  are  said  to  be  Ishmaelites  in  Gen. 
37 :  25-27  and  39 : 1  and  Midianites  in  Gen.  37 :  28,  36. 

Answer. — There  is  no  contradiction  in  these  names. 
In  Judges  7 :  8  is  found  the  record  that  Gideon  did 


THE    PENTATEUCH    IX    GENERAL      127 

battle  against  the  Midianites  and  yet  we  read  concern- 
ing the  conquered  (8:24),  "They  had  golden  earrings 
because  they  were  Ishmaelites/'  Evidently  the  term 
Ishmaelites  included  the  narrower  name  Midianites. 
Accordingly  they  are  sometimes  called  by  one  name  and 
sometimes  by  the  other.  Others  suggest  that  the  term 
Ishmaelite  may  be  a  general  designation  for  merchant- 
man as  they  were  preeminent  in  commerce.  The  ad- 
mission of  a  final  redactor  is  fatal  to  the  assertion  of 
irreconcilable  contradictions  in  the  Pentateuch.  A 
man  of  such  marvelous  ability  as  he  must  have  pos- 
sessed w^ould  have  seen  the  contradictions  if  they  were 
afe  patent  as  they  are  said  to  be,  and  would  have 
removed  them. 

Over  against  these  arguments  for  the  composite 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  stands  the  remarkable 
evidence  of  plan  and  arrangement  in  these  five  books. 
This  is  not  denied  by  the  critics.  They  explain  the 
unity  of  plan  by  the  skill  of  the  final  Redactor  and  by 
his  using  P  the  most  systematic  and  complete  of  the 
documents  as  the  basis  of  his  completed  work.  But 
this  explanation  is  insufficient.  It  is  true  that  an 
historian  may  use  many  varying  and  even  contradictory 
sources,  weighing  them  against  each  other  and  working 
them  over  into  a  unity.  In  doing  so  he  does  not  retain, 
however,  the  language  of  the  originals  but  fuses  them 
into  a  unity  of  which  he  is  the  author.  Quite  different 
from  this  is  the  critical  explanation  of  the  Pentateuch. 
It  is  said  to  have  been  a  process  of  stratification  in 
which  the  language  and  forms  of  the  original  can  even 
now  be  distinguished.  The  Redactor  merely  fastened 
the  documents  together,  making  a  few  changes  or  addi- 
tions.    Under  these  circumstances,  we  assert  that  the 


128     OLD    TESTAME^^T    INTRODUCTION 

orderly  history  we  possess  is  utterly  impossible  and  the 
theory  is  contradicted  by  its  own  assumption,  for  the 
Redactor  is  an  impossible  character.  He  showed  mar- 
vellous genius  in  bringing  order  out  of  the  chaos  of 
documents  and  yet  he  was  such  a  bungler  that  the  errors 
of  his  work  have  come  down  to  us  as  evidences  of  his 
folly. 

It  is  not  claimed  that  there  are  no  difficulties  in 
accepting  the  unity  and  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch. But  it  is  claimed  that  the  difficulties  of 
accepting  the  story  of  its  origin  which  has  been  made 
for  us  by  the  keen  critical  insight  of  a  century  and  more 
of  critics,  tax  our  credulity  far  more  than  the  tradi- 
tional view.  This  plan  presents  a  mountain  of  difficulty 
for  every  mole  hill  which  it  removes  and  to  all  its 
specious  arguments  we  reply,  non  sequitur. 


GENESIS 

I.  Name.  The  Hebrews  named  each  book  of  the 
Pentateuch  by  its  opening  word  or  words.  Accordingly 
the  first  book  of  Moses  was  named  TT'K^i^na,  a  name  which 
was  transliterated  into  Greek  by  Origen  BprjatO.  The 
Septnagint  called  the  book  Fivsct?  from  the  headings 
of  its  ten  parts  (Gen.  2:4;  5:1;  6:9;  10:1;  11:10;  11: 
27;  25  :  12  ;  25  :  19  ;  36  :  1 ;  37 :  2)  in  each  of  which  that 
w^ord  occurs  in  the  translation.  The  Vulgate  and  most 
modern  translations  have  adopted  this  Greek  name. 
It  means  origin,  birth,  generation  and  is  an  appropriate 
equivalent  in  the  plural  of  the  Hebrew  nilpin  which  is 
the  ke3'-word  of  the  book. 

II.  Author  and  Composition  (see  Chapter  on  Pen- 
tateuch). 

III.  Purpose.  As  this  Greek  name  implies,  the 
purpose  of  the  book  is  to  trace  the  beginnings  of  his- 
tory. The  vie^\^oint  however  is  not  that  of  the  modern 
historian  who  gathers  together  all  possible  material 
and  arranges  it  in  chronological  order.  It  is  rather  to 
present  a  brief  outline  of  the  history  of  divine  revela- 
tion up  to  the  beginning  of  national  life  in  Israel.  The 
perfection  and  purpose  of  creation  and  the  temporary 
thwarting  of  that  purpose  by  the  sin  of  man  are  the 
logical  introduction  to  the  history.  The  history  itself 
exhibits  the  gradual  process  of   selection  among  the 

129 


130     OLD    TESTAMENT    INTEODUCTION" 

descendants  of  Adam  up  to  the  point  where  selection 
ceased,  and  the  entire  body  of  one  man's  descendants 
were  to  be  the  chosen  vehicle  for  transmitting  God's 
revelation  and  salvation  to  all  mankind.  The  develop- 
ment of  this  process  included  the  rejection  of  Cain,  the 
appointment  of  Seth,  the  destruction  and  purification 
of  the  world  by  the  flood,  the  preservation  of  Noah  and 
his  family  to  be  a  new  beginning  of  the  race,  the  choice 
of  Shem,  the  scattering  of  mankind  from  Babel,  the 
call  of  Abraham,  the  miraculous  birth  of  Isaac  and  his 
consecration  to  God  on  one  of  the  mountains  of 
^loriah,  the  selection  of  the  younger  son  Jacob  and  the 
history  of  his  chastening  which  finally  resulted  in  bring- 
ing him  and  his  household  into  Egypt,  the  cradle  of 
Israel's  national  life.  In  Genesis  God  deals  with  indi- 
viduals and  families  while  in  the  later  books  He  deals 
with  nations  and  especially  the  Hebrew  nation  through 
the  instrumentality  of  national  and  religious  leaders. 

Genesis  is  related  to  the  Pentateuch  as  the  Pentateuch 
is  related  to  the  Old  Testament  and  the  Old  Testament 
to  the  New.  Genesis  describes  the  ground  and  how 
God  planted  in  it  the  seed  of  a  pure  national  life  while 
the  later  books  of  the  Pentateuch  describe  the  growth 
of  that  seed  into  a  full-grown  tree.  The  later  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  describe  the  growth  on  that  tree 
of  a  special  branch  and  twig  and  the  gradual  unfolding 
of  a  bud  into  a  flower  until  the  coming  of  the  fruit. 
In  the  New  Testament  we  see  the  perfect  fruit  plucked 
from  the  tree  and  given  for  the  healing  of  the  nations. 

IV.     Divisions. 
Introduction  Chapters  1-11: 
(a)  The  Creation  1 : 1  to  2 :  3. 
(h)  History  till  the  flood  2 :  4  to  5 :  32. 


GENESIS  131 

(c)  The  Flood  and  History  till  Abraham  Chaps. 
6-11. 

1.  The  History  of  Abraham  including  the  early 
history  of  Isaac  12 : 1  to  25 :  18. 

2.  The  History  of  Jacob  including  that  of  Isaac  and 
the  twelve  patriarchs  until  Joseph's  death  25:19  to 
50:26. 

V.  Sources.  We  have  seen  in  the  previous  chapter 
that  if  there  were  written  records  in  Israel  Moses  would 
certainly  have  them,  and  if  there  were  oral  traditions 
he  would  know  them.  In  this  connection  a  few  signifi- 
cant facts  and  suggestions  may  be  mentioned: 

1.  More  than  three-quarters  of  Genesis  (chapters 
12-50)  refers  to  events  in  the  life-time  of  Abraham, 
Isaac  and  Jacob — events  which  Joseph  would  undoubt- 
edly know  and  which  his  evident  interest  in  his  family 
might  have  inspired  him  to  collect.  His  powerful 
position  in  Egypt  would  have  made  it  easy  for  him  to 
collect  material  for  a  history  of  his  people.  The  per- 
sonal tone  of  the  record  of  Abraham's  prayer  for  Sodom 
and  of  his  offering  Isaac  as  well  as  that  of  Joseph's 
making  himself  known  to  his  brethren  is  just  what 
we  would  expect  if  the  record  of  Moses  were  based  upon 
an  earlier  autobiographical  record. 

2.  Abraham  came  from  a  country  where  the  knowl- 
edge of  writing  and  reading  was  common  and  from  an 
important  city  mentioned  in  the  code  of  Hammurabi, 
probably  the  Amraphel  of  Gen.  14.  In  that  country 
traditions  of  the  creation  and  the  flood  were  preserved, 
which  have  much  in  common  with  those  in  Genesis. 
That  is  the  ybtj  country  also  in  which  Genesis  places 
the  site  of  the  garden  of  Eden  and  where  the  confusion 
of  tongues  is  said  to  have  occurred.    There  if  anywhere 


132     OLD    TESTAMENT    mTEODUCTION 

the  remains  of  an  original  revelation  concerning  cre- 
ation and  an  accurate  story  of  the  flood  would  be  handed 
down.  What  could  be  more  natural  than  that  Abraham 
carried  such  records  and  genealogies  with  him  from  the 
banks  of  the  Euphrates  to  the  land  of  Canaan  ?  "  Abra- 
ham gave  all  that  he  had  unto  Isaac"  (Gen.  25:5). 
Perhaps  these  priceless  records  were  among  his  posses- 
sions. If  so  they  went  down  with  Jacob  into  Eg}^t  and 
form  the  basis  of  Gen.  1-11  as  written  by  Moses. 

3.  AVe  know  that  in  one  matter  at  least  tradition  was 
handed  down  from  Joseph  to  Moses  through  the  four 
centuries  of  sojourn  in  Egypt.  Joseph  made  his 
brothers  promise  to  carry  up  his  bones  from  EgA^^t 
(Gen.  50:25).  Joseph's  body  was  kept  carefully  until 
Moses'  time,  was  carried  out  of  Egypt  by  the  Israelites 
(Ex.  13:19)  and  buried  at  Shechem  (Josh.  2-1:32). 
Coflfins  of  Joseph's  time  and  earlier  were  inscribed  with 
extracts  from  the  Egyptian  Book  of  the  Dead.  But  if 
the  coffins  of  Egyptian  priests  and  princes  bore  in- 
scriptions from  Egyptian  holy  books,  why  should  not 
the  coffin  of  Joseph,  the  savior  of  Israel  and  the  Prem- 
ier of  Egypt,  bear  records  of  the  traditions  of  his 
ancestors?  Such  a  plausible  suggestion  shows  how 
easily  reliable  sources  for  Genesis  could  have  come  into 
the  hands  of  Moses. 

VI.  Chronology.  The  figures  of  the  genealogies  in 
Gen.  5  and  11  may  be  tabulated  and  dates  derived  from 
them  as  follows : 


GENESIS  133 


a 


o  o 


!2g      -13       3^        ^"S        <-§ 

JS  !«.  ^J  5  1  £| 

<3  m  Q 

Adam 130  800  930  1  930 

Seth 105  807  912  130  1042 

Enos 90  815  905  235  1140 

Cainan 70  840  910  325  1235 

Mahalaleel 65  830  895  395  1290 

Jared 162  800  962  460  1422 

Enoch 65  300  365  622  987 

Methuselah...   187  782  969  687  1656 

Lamech 182  595  777  874  1651 

Noah 500  450  950  1056  2006 

DateofFlood^ 1656 

Shem 100  500  600  1556  2156 

Arphaxad 35  403  438  1656  2093 

Salah 30  403  433  1691  2124 

Eber 34  430  464  1721  2185 

Peleg 30  209  239  1755  1994 

Reu 32  207  239  1785  2024 

Serug 30  200  230  1817  2047 

Nahor 29  119  148  1847  1995 

Terah 70  135  205  1876  2081 

Abram 100^  75  175^  1946  2121 

These  dates  would  allow  only  about  four  thousand 
years  from  Adam  to  Christ  since  the  date  of  Abraham 
must  have  been  2000  to  2250  B.C.  But  the  Egyptian 
and  Babylonian  civilizations  were  highly  developed 
before  4000  B.C.  The  dates  of  this  table  therefore  are 
not  true.  The  explanation  of  the  figures  in  the  geneal- 
*Gen,  7:11.    ''Gen.    21:5.    "Gen.   25:7. 


134     OLD    TESTAMENT    IXTEODUCTIOX 

ogies  of  Gen.  5  and  11  is  to  be  found  in  the  following 
considerations : 

1.  The  genealogies  of  scripture  are  not  intended  to 
be  complete  but  mention  only  a  few  outstanding  names. 
That  in  Matthew  1  has  three  lists  of  fourteen  genera- 
tions each,  covering  respectively  three  unequal  periods : 
Abraham  to  David,  over  a  thousand  years,  David  to  the 
Exile  about  four  centuries,  and  the  Exile  to  Christ  more 
than  five  centuries.  The  genealogy  in  Ex.  6 :  16-2 -i 
makes  Moses  the  great-grandson  of  Levi  though  430 
years  intervened  (Ex.  12  :  40).  Many  names  are  omitted 
in  these  lists. 

2.  There  are  indications  that  the  list  of  names  in 
Genesis  5  and  11  is  not  complete.  The  total  length  of 
time  from  Adam  to  the  flood  and  from  the  flood  to 
Abraham  is  never  mentioned  in  scripture  although  the 
period  from  Joseph  to  Moses  (Ex.  12:40)  and  that 
from  the  Exodus  to  the  building  of  the  temple  (I  Kings 
6:1)  are  mentioned.  The  fact  that  there  are  just  ten 
names  in  each  list  also  suggests  that  a  similar  arrange- 
ment may  have  been  made  as  in  the  first  chapter  of 
Matthew.  Furthermore  if  the  dates  are  true,  Adam  was 
contemporary  with  every  generation  till  the  flood  except 
Noah.  Indeed  Xoah  knew  all  but  three  of  the  genera- 
tions before  him.  Methuselah  died  and  Arphaxad  was 
born  in  the  year  of  the  flood  (notice  however  Gen.  11 : 
10).  Shem  survived  Abraham  thirty-five  years,  Salah 
three  years  and  Eber  sixty-four  years.  Such  conclusions 
are  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  record  which  presup- 
poses a  much  longer  gap  between  Adam  and  Xoah  and 
between  Xoah  and  Abraham. 

3.  The  regular  formula  is:   "A  lived years  and 

begat  B.     And  A.  lived  after  he  begat  B.  years 


GENESIS  135 

and  begat  sons  and  daughters.    And  B.  lived years 

and  begat  C,  etc."  The  word  ^h^  however  is  sometimes 
used  of  succeeding  generations.  Zilpah  is  said  to  have 
borne  her  great-grandchildren  (Gen.  46: 18)  and  Bilhah 
her  grandchildren  (Gen.  46:25).  Canaan  is  said  to 
have  begotten  whole  nations  (Gen.  10:15-18).  Also 
notice  Exodus  1:5:  "All  the  souls  that  came  out  of 
the  loins  of  Jacob  were  seventy  souls."  This  includes 
grandchildren.  In  the  formula  the  meaning  is  not 
necessarily  that  B.  is  the  literal  son  of  A.  and  that  A. 

was years  old  when  B.  was  born.     B.  may  be  the 

literal  son  or  a  distant  descendant,  and  if  the  latter  the 
age  of  A.  is  his  age  at  the  birth  of  the  child  from  whom 
B.  was  descended.  Thus  many  centuries  may  intervene 
between  A.  and  B.  No  chronology  is  intended  in  these 
figures.  Their  purpose  is  not  to  show  the  age  of  the 
world  but  the  effect  of  sin  upon  human  vitality  and 
longevity  (For  further  discussion  see  Bibliotheca  Sacra 
April  1890). 


n 

EX0DU3 

I.  Name.  The  book  was  named  by  the  Jews  from 
its  first  words  r\)Df  n^NI  or  more  briefly  r\)Dp  The  Sep- 
tuagint  named  it  *E^odo?  from  its  contents.  This  was 
adopted  in  the  Vulgate  and  from  it  in  the  modern 
versions. 

II.  Author  and  Composition  (see  Chapter  on  Pen- 
tateuch). 

III.  Theme.  The  second  book  of  Moses  is  closely 
connected  with  the  first.  It  begins  with  the  conjunc- 
tion '^and"  introducing  a  list  of  the  twelve  sons  of 
Jacob  who  came  down  into  Egypt.  It  takes  up  the 
story  of  Genesis  at  the  death  of  Joseph  and  carries  it 
on  through  the  establishment  of  the  theocracy  at  Mt. 
Sinai.  It  records  the  beginnings  of  God's  fulfilment  of 
His  promise  to  Abraham  to  give  the  land  of  Canaan  to 
his  descendants. 

The  special  phase  of  this  fulfilment,  with  which 
Exodus  deals,  is  the  beginning  of  separate  national 
existence.  The  growth  from  a  small  group  of  families 
numbering  only  seventy  souls  into  a  real  nation  is  passed 
over  with  a  few  words  because  that  period  of  over  three 
centuries  contained  nothing  germane  to  the  purpose  of 
the  religious  historian.  The  oppression,  however,  which 
resulted  in  the  still  greater  growth  of  Israel  and  finally 
in  their  deliverance  furnished  an  important  subject, 
which  would  be  calculated  to  stimulate  the  gratitude 

136 


EXODUS  137 

and  faith  of  God's  people  in  future  generations.  Exodus 
records  the  beginnings  of  national  life  in  Israel,  as 
Genesis  the  beginnings  of  religious  life.  Exodus  there- 
fore appropriately  recounts  the  origin  of  Israel's  great- 
est national  feast,  the  Passover.  It  follows  the  people 
in  the  wilderness  only  as  far  at  Mt.  Sinai  where  God 
gave  the  Magna  Charta  of  their  national  life.  Certain 
statutes  given  at  that  time  fill  the  concluding  chapters 
of  the  book. 

IV.  Divisions, 

1.  The  History  of  Israel  till  their  arrival  at  Mt. 
Sinai  1 ;  1  to  19 :  2. 

a.  The  oppression  of  Israel,  chapter  1. 

&.  The  training  of  Moses  the  deliverer,  chapter  2. 

c.  His  call  and  messages  to  Pharaoh,  chapters  3-11. 

d.  The  institution  of  the  Passover,  12:ltol3:16. 

e.  Israel's  journeys  to  Sinai  13  :  17  to  19 :  2. 

2.  The  Eevelations  at  Mt.  Sinai,  19:  3  to  40:  38,  in- 
cluding the  Decalogue  and  various  moral  and  ceremonial 
laws. 

V.  Contemporaneous  History.  The  dates  of  the 
sojourn  of  the  Israelites  in  Egypt  are  somewhat  difficult 
to  obtain.  In  I  Kings  6 : 1  we  are  told  that  480  years 
intervened  between  the  Exodus  and  the  beginning  of 
Solomon's  temple,  and  that  the  latter  event  occurred  in 
the  fourth  year  of  Solomon's  reign.  This  would  give 
about  1495  B.C.  as  the  date  of  the  Exodus  and  the  430 
of  Israel's  sojourn  in  Egypt  (Ex.  12:40-41)  would 
be  from  1925  to  1495  B.C.  These  dates  agree  well  with 
the  supposed  date  of  Abraham  (about  2200  B.C.)  if  his 
contemporary  "  Amraphel  king  of  Shinar  "  (Gen.  14: 1) 
be  identified  with  Hammurabi,  who  reigned  according 
to  Winckler  2264-2210  B.  C.     The  period  between  the 


138     OLD    TESTAMENT    INTRODUCTION" 

reign  of  Hammurabi  and  1925  is  about  covered  by  the 
few  years  after  the  mention  of  Amraphel  before  the 
birth  of  Isaac  (Gen.  21:  5),  the  60  years  of  Isaac's  life 
before  Jacob's  birth  (Gen.  25:  26)  and  the  130  years  of 
Jacob's  life  before  his  descent  into  Egypt  (Gen.  47:  9). 

From  Egyptian  sources  Petrie  dates  the  Exodus  at 
1204  B.C.  while  Budge  and  most  other  authorities  prefer 
about  1320  B.C.  At  any  rate,  Joseph  is  thought  to  have 
come  into  Eg3'pt  during  the  reign  of  Apepa  II,  the  last 
great  Hyksos  or  Shepherd  King.  These  conquerors  were 
Asiatics.  Some  historians  think  they  were  a  mixed  race, 
partly  Semitic,  and  others  that  they  were  Hittites. 
According  to  Manetho  they  ruled  Egypt  511  years. 
Joseph  was  elevated  to  power  toward  the  close  of  their 
supremacy.  This  would  explain  the  silence  of  the 
Egyptian  records  concerning  Joseph,  as  well  as  the 
Bible  statement :  "  Now  there  arose  up  a  new  king  over 
Eg}^t,  which  knew  not  Joseph"  (Ex.  1:8).  It  is 
natural  that  a  king  who  belonged  to  a  dynasty  of  foreign 
usurpers  should  be  -uilling  to  give  a  place  in  the  land 
to  the  Israelites  but  that  later  kings  of  native  rulers 
should  despise  Israel  and  oppress  them.  The  Hyksos 
kings  ruled  at  Tanis,  identified  -with.  Zoan,  in  the  eastern 
part  of  the  Delta,  not  far  from  the  land  of  Goshen  and 
the  later  site  of  the  treasure  cities,  Pithom  and  Ramses. 
They  constitute  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  dynasties 
and  were  so  far  assimilated  to  Egyptian  customs  that 
the  remains  of  their  work  resemble  that  of  other 
Eg}T3tian  kings. 

During  the  seventeenth  dynasty  the  native  kings 
whose  capital  was  at  Thebes  made  war  upon  the  Hyksos 
but  they  were  not  driven  out  until  the  eighteenth 
dynasty.     By  far  the  most  powerful  king  of  the  eight- 


EXODUS  139 

eenth  dynasty  was  Thothmes  III  who  had  led  fifteen  expe- 
ditions against  the  princes  in  Syria  and  subjugated 
them.  On  the  walls  of  the  temple  at  Karnak  is  a  list 
of  119  places  in  Syria  which  were  subject  to  this  king. 
Two  of  them  Jacob-El  and  Joseph-El  are  thought  to  be 
places  named  after  Jacob  and  Joseph.  Thothmes  III 
carried  his  conquests  as  far  as  the  upper  Euphrates. 
The  x^egean  islands  as  well  as  Cyprus  and  part  of  Asia 
Minor  were  also  subject  to  him.  Great  light  is  shed 
upon  the  history  of  this  time  by  the  tablets  discovered 
at  Tel-el-Amarna  in  1887.  They  are  letters  and  reports 
from  the  rulers  of  the  Syrian  provinces  mostly  to 
Amenophis  III,  the  third  king  after  Thothmes  III  and 
are  in  the  Babylonian  language,  the  language  of 
diplomacy  in  that  time.  They  refer  to  a  people  called 
Khabiri  who  are  identified  by  some  with  the  Hebrews. 
They  are  mentioned  by  the  king  of  Jerusalem  as  attack- 
ing various  places  in  southern  Palestine.  If  the  identi- 
fication is  correct,  we  must  conclude  either  that  the 
Exodus  occurred  much  earlier  than  has  been  thought 
(1400  B.C.)  and  the  attacks  referred  to  were  the  con- 
quests of  Canaan  described  in  Joshua  or  that  some  of 
the  Hebrews  had  left  Egypt  before  the  Exodus  and  were 
seeking  to  establish  themselves  in  southern  Palestine. 
The  latter  h5rpothesis  is  more  probable.  Hommel  thinks 
the  tribe  of  Asher  emigrated  from  Egypt  before  the 
other  tribes  and  concerning  the  relations  of  Israel  to 
Canaan  during  their  sojourn  in  Egypt  he  says:  "It 
is  extremely  probable  in  view  of  the  intimate  relation 
between  Egypt  and  Palestine  that  the  Israelites  in  the 
land  of  Goshen  maintained  continual  intercourse  and 
uninterrupted  contact  with  the  latter  country,  through- 
out the  whole  430  years  of  their  stay  in  Egypt "  ("  He- 


140     OLD    TESTA:\rEXT    INTRODUCTION 

brew  Tradition/'  p.  226).  The  Khabiri,  however,  may 
have  been  the  designation  of  the  people  of  a  certain 
region  in  southern  Palestine  rather  than  the  name  of  a 
race.  Such  was  probably  the  original  usage  of  the  name 
Hebrew. 

The  successor  of  Amenophis  III  was  Amenophis  IV, 
famous  as  the  Pharaoh  who  attempted  to  revolutionize 
the  Egyptian  religion  by  substituting  the  worship  of 
the  sun,  in  order  to  unify  the  various  religions  of  his 
empire.  The  attempt  failed  and  the  new  religion  was 
overthrown  soon  after  his  death.  The  internal  dis- 
turbances caused  by  Amenophis  IV  were  quieted  by 
Harmais,  counted  by  some  the  last  Pharaoh  of  the  18th 
and  by  others  the  first  of  the  19th  djoiasty.  He  was 
succeeded  by  Ramses  I  who  after  a  short  reign  was 
followed  by  Seti  I  and  he  in  turn  by  Ramses  II,  known 
as  Ramses  the  Great. 

This  monarch  is  generally  regarded  as  the  Pharaoh 
of  the  oppression.  He  waged  war  against  the  Hittites 
many  years,  but  finally  made  peace  with  them,  accord- 
ing to  which  northern  Syria  became  tributary  to  the 
Hittites  and  Palestine  remained  subject  to  Egypt.  He 
reigned  sixty-seven  years.  Fully  half  of  all  the  extant 
temples  of  Egypt  are  from  his  time  and  he  is  the  best 
known  of  all  the  Pharaohs.  He  strengthened  the  Delta 
towns  and  made  Tanis  (Zoan)  his  favorite  residence. 
His  power  in  Syria  was  far  weaker  than  that  of 
Thothmes  III  two  centuries  before  him.  He  was  suc- 
ceeded by  his  son  ]\Ianephthah,  probably  the  Pharaoh  of 
the  Exodus.  This  agrees  with  scripture.  The  oppres- 
sion of  Israel  had  begun  when  Moses  was  born  but 
Moses  was  eighty  years  old  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus 
(Ex.  7:7).     Naturally  the  oj^pression  would  begin  at 


EXODUS  lil 

the  opening  of  a  new  reign.  Furthermore  what  we 
know  from  secular  history  of  the  haughty  bearing  of 
Kamses  II  harmonizes  with  the  character  of  the  op- 
pressor of  Israel.  The  fact  that  he  strengthened  the 
cities  of  the  Delta  and  lived  there,  not  far  from  the 
land  of  Goshen,  agrees  with  the  statement  that  he  made 
Israel  work  with  rigor  in  brick  and  mortar  and  that 
they  built  the  cities  Pithom  and  Ramses.  Thus  the 
Exodus  occurred  thirteen  or  more  years  after  the 
accession  of  Manephthah. 

Little  is  kno\\Ti  of  that  monarch.  A  peculiar  record 
concerning  him  was  discovered  in  1896.  It  records  the 
names  of  certain  localities  which  he  subjugated  in  the 
following  order :  "  The  Hittite  land,  Canaan,  Ashkelon, 
Gezer,  Janoah,  Ysiri'r— '  all  lands/"  The  connection 
of  the  last  name  shows  apparently  that  it  belongs  to 
some  people  living  in  southern  Palestine,  although  the 
previous  name  Janoah  is  unknown.  Some  think  it  is 
a  reference  to  Israel.  If  so,  it  is  the  only  mention  of 
them  in  Egyptian  inscription  thus  far  discovered.  Aside 
from  this  list  there  is  no  mention  of  an  Asiatic  campaign 
of  Manephthah.  The  date  of  another  campaign  in  this 
same  account  is  the  fifth  year  of  his  reign.  This  would 
be  before  the  Exodus  if  the  birth  of  Moses  occurred  after 
the  accession  of  Ramses  II.  If  therefore  the  hypothesis 
already  suggested  be  true,  that  some  of  the  Hebrews 
had  broken  away  from  the  oppression  of  Egypt  and 
sought  a  refuge  in  southern  Palestine  before  the 
Exodus,  they  may  have  been  the  people  whom  Maneph- 
thah encountered  there.  Both  the  Hebrew  and  the 
Egyptian  accounts  of  this  matter  are  so  meagre  that 
we  must  suspend  judgment  until  we  have  more  light. 
All  the  light  we  have  tends  to  confirm  the  accuracy  of 


U2     OLD  TESTAMENT  IXTEODUCTION" 

the  Bible  record.  And  if  that  record  is  true,  we  would 
not  expect  any  mention  of  Israel  either  in  the  inscrip- 
tions of  the  Pharaoh  whom  God  judged  or  the  Pharaoh 
whose  hosts  God  overthrew  in  the  Eed  Sea. 

According  to  a  newer  view,  Thothmes  III  of  the 
eighteenth  dynasty  was  the  Pharaoh  of  the  oppression 
and  either  Amenophis  II  or  Thothmes  IV  the  Pharaoh 
of  the  Exodus.  The  chief  argument  for  this  theory  is 
chronological.  The  usual  date  of  the  Exodus  (1320 
B.C.)  does  not  allow  for  the  48C5  years  of  I  Kings  6:  1 
between  the  Exodus  and  the  building  of  the  temple 
(1015  B.C.)  and  on  the  other  hand  leaves  too  much 
time  between  the  dates  of  Abraham  (2250  B.C.)  and  the 
Exodus.  The  480  years  would  bring  us  back  to  the  end 
of  the  reign  of  Thothmes  III.  Furthermore  what  is 
known  of  that  monarch  and  his  time  agrees  with  the 
Bible  record.  The  picture  of  brick-making  by  captives, 
bearing  the  superscription,  "  Be  not  idle,"  is  from  his 
reign.  On  this  theory  Queen  Hatasu,  the  daughter  of 
Thothmes  I,  who  reigned  with  her  brother  Thothmes 
II  and  during  the  minority  of  Thothmes  III  may  have 
been  the  Pharaoh^s  daughter  who  brought  up  the  child 
Moses  and  the  Khabiri  of  the  Tel-el- Amarna  letters  may 
have  been  the  hosts  of  Israel  who  were  threatening  to 
overthrow  the  king  of  Jerusalem. 

The  facts  are  too  meager  to  decide  definitely  between 
these  two  theories.  They  suffice  merely  to  corroborate 
the  Bible  account. 


Ill 

LEVITICUS 

I.  Name.  The  third  book  of  Moses  was  named  by 
the  Jews  from  its  opening  word  ^<'^|??1  In  the  Mishna 
it  is  variously  designated  D^jn3  n^iri/  D''jni)  "iDp  and 
mj3"ij?  ipu  according  to  the  character  of  its  contents.  On 
the  same  principle  it  is  named  in  the  Septuagint 
A£utT(x6>  and  by  Philo  Aeucruij  BifiXo?.  From  the  Sep- 
tuagint the  Vulgate  derived  the  name  Liber  Leviticus. 
The  latter  name  has  come  down  as  the  designation  in 
many  modern  versions. 

II.  Author  and  Composition  (see  Chapter  on  Pen- 
tateuch). 

III.  Purpose.  This  book,  as  the  names  in  the 
Mishna  and  Septuagint  show,  was  intended  for  the 
priests.  It  was  their  guide-book  for  the  worship  of 
Jehovah  and  the  instruction  of  Israel  in  their  part  of 
that  worship.  It  stands  appropriately  after  Exodus 
which  closes  with  the  dedication  of  the  completed 
tabernacle.  And  yet  it  is  markedly  distinct  from 
Exodus  both  in  the  manner  and  matter  of  its  revelation. 
This  distinction  is  shown  in  the  first  verse  of  the  book. 
"And  the  Lord  called  unto  Moses  and  spake  unto  him 
out  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation  "  (Lev.  1:1). 
As  Donald  Eraser  well  remarks :  "  We  have  in  Leviti- 
cus, not  the  Lawgiver  speaking  in  awful  tones  or  writing 
on  tablets  of  stones,  but  the  Portion  of  Israel,  dwelling 

14.3 


144     OLD    TESTAMENT    INTEODUCTION 

in  the  midst  of  His  people  and  teaching  them  how  they 
might  draw  near  to  His  presence  and  abide  in  com- 
munion with  Him  "  ("  Synoptical  Lectures/'  Vol.  1,  p. 
29).  Leviticus  is  also  clearly  distinct  in  purpose  from 
Deuteronomy.  The  latter  is  a  resume  of  the  law  for 
popular  use  while  Leviticus  is  a  code  intended  for  the 
priests.  Leviticus  has  its  inspired  commentary  in  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  which  describes  the  true  method 
of  approach  to  God  in  the  dispensation  of  grace,  as 
Leviticus  had  shown  it  in  the  dispensation  of  law. 
IV.     Divisions. 

1.  The  way  to  approach   God,  culminating  in  the 
ceremony  of  the  day  of  atonement.    Chapters  1-16. 

a.  Laws  of  sacrifices.     Chapters  1-7. 

&.  The  consecration  of  the  priests.    Chapters  8-9. 

c.  The  sin  of  ISTadab  and  Abihu  and  laws  occa- 

sioned thereby.    Chapter  10. 

d.  Laws  of  purification.    Chapters  11-15. 

e.  The  ceremony  of  the  day  of  atonement.     Chap- 

ter 16. 

2.  The  way  to  maintain  fellowship  with  God.    Chap- 
ters 17-27. 

a.  Prohibitions  for  priests  and  people.     Chapters 

17-22. 
h.  Laws  of  religious  festivals.     Chapters  23-25. 
c.  Supplementary  laws.      Chapters  26-27. 


NUMBERS 

I.  Name.  The  Jews  named  the  book  ^2il*l  from  its 
first  word  or  more  commonly  from  the  fifth  word  l^lp^ 
whicli  indicates  its  contents.  The  Mishna  and  Talmud 
for  the  same  reason  designated  it  D^'l^pSin  ^iph.  With 
this  last  designation  the  Septnagint  name  ('Api6jxo\) 
agrees.  The  Vulgate  translated  the  Greek  name,  Liber 
ISTumeri.  The  names  in  modern  versions  are  derived 
from  the  Vulgate. 

II.  Author  and  Composition  (see  Chapter  on  Pen- 
tateuch) . 

III.  Theme.  This  book  takes  up  the  history  of  the 
wilderness  wanderings  where  the  book  of  Exodus  left  it, 
after  the  revelation  at  Mt.  Sinai  and  carries  it  on  to 
the  verge  of  Israel's  entrance  into  the  promised  land. 
Thus  it  appropriately  stands  after  Leviticus  which  con- 
tains the  body  of  priestly  legislation  given  at  Mt.  Sinai, 
and  before  Deuteronomy,  which  contains  the  farewell 
addresses  of  Moses  to  the  people  just  before  his  death. 
It  covers  thirty-eight  years  of  history.  Yet  the  history 
is  fullest  in  the  first  and  last  of  these  years,  the  inter- 
vening years  being  years  of  apostasy  and  containing 
nothing  of  permanent  religious  value.  Chapter  33 
contains  a  complete  list  of  the  camping  places  of  Israel 
from  their  leaving  Egypt  till  they  reached  the  plains  of 
Moab.  Certain  laws  are  also  introduced  with  the  occa- 
sion which  gave  rise  to  them. 

145 


146     OLD    TESTAMEXT    IXTRODUCTION 

IV.     Divisions. 

1.  Preparations  for  leaving  Mt.  Sinai  1 :  1  to  10 :  10. 
a.  Numbering    and    arrangement    of    the    people 

Chapters  1-3. 
6.  Duties  of  the  Levites.     Chapter  4. 

c.  Various  laws  5 :  1  to  9 :  14. 

d.  Guidance  by  the  pillar  of  cloud  and  fire  9 :  15 

to  10:10. 

2.  March  from  Mt.  Sinai  to  the  Plains  of  Moab  10 :  11 

to  22 : 1. 
a.  Events  on  the  way  to  the  wilderness  of  Paran 

10:11  to  12:16. 
I.  Events   and   laws   at   Kadesh-Barnea    13 : 1   to 

20:21. 
c.  Events  on  the  way  from  Kadesh  to  Moab  20 :  22 

to  22:1. 

3.  Events  on  the  Plains  of  Moab  22  :  2  to  36 :  13. 
a.  The  Prophecies  of  Balaam  22:2  to  24:25. 
&.  The  sin  of  Israel.    Chapter  25. 

c.  The  numbering  of   Israel  and  the  request  of 

Zelophehad's  daughters  26:1  to  27:14. 

d.  Moses^  death  and  successor  foretold  27 :  15-23. 

e.  Laws  of  offerings  and  vows.     Chapters  28-30. 
/.   Conquest  of  the  Midianites.     Chapter  31. 

g.  The  trans-Jordanic  settlements.     Chapter  32. 
h.  Stations  in  the  wilderness.     Chapter  33. 
i.    Eegulations  concerning  the  division  of  Canaan. 
Chapters  34-36. 


V 

DEUTERONOMSr 

I.  Name.  The  book  is  designated  in  the  Hebrew 
Bible  by  its  first  two  words,  Dnn-nn  n^N  or  simply 
Dnn"!  In  the  Massorah  it  is  named  from  its  contents 
nninnJ^p  (Deut.  17:18).  For  the  same  reason  it  is 
called  Azure pir^oixiov  in  the  Septuagint.  This  name  was 
transliterated  in  the  Vulgate,  Liber  Deuteronomii,  and 
from  the  Vulgate  has  been  adopted  in  modern  versions. 

II.  Author  and  Composition  (see  chapter  on  the 
Pentateuch). 

III.  Purpose.  This  book  is  the  appropriate  close  of 
the  books  of  history  and  legislation  which  Moses  left. 
It  contains  little  history  but  that  little  presupposes  that 
the  events  of  Exodus  and  Numbers  had  already  been 
recorded.  It  is  not  legislation  in  the  ordinary  sense  but 
is  a  resume  of  legislation  already  given  with  exhorta- 
tion and  warning.  The  spirit  and  the  matter  of  Deu- 
teronomy thus  presuppose  the  existence  of  the  book  of 
Leviticus  and  the  legislative  portion  of  Exodus.  On  the 
other  hand  both  the  historical  and  legislative  parts  of 
the  book  are  written  from  a  standpoint  before  the  events 
recorded  in  Joshua  had  occurred.  Deuteronomy  is 
preparatory  for  Joshua.  Yet  the  death  of  Moses  with 
which  this  book  closes  separates  its  history  from  that  of 
Joshua  which  records  the  administration  of  Moses' 
successor. 

147 


148     OLD    TESTAME:N^T    INTEODUCTIOlSr 

Deuteronomy  is  Moses'  parting  discourse  before  his 
death.  It  forms  the  basis  of  the  exhortations  of 
Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel.  Our  Lord  paid  special  honor 
to  this  book  since  all  three  of  the  quotations  with  which 
he  overcame  Satan  were  taken  from  it  (Deut.  8:3; 
6:16;  and  10:20). 

IV.     Divisions.    Introduction  1 : 1-5. 

1.  Moses'  first  address  reviewing  Israel's  experiences 
from  Sinai  to  Moab  1 :  6  to  4 :  40. 

Supplementary  statements  4 :  41-49. 

2.  Moses'  second  address.  Chapters  5-26.  For  the 
most  part  this  is  a  popular  presentation  of  the  laws  with 
exhortations  to  obedience. 

3.  Moses'  third  address  foretelling  the  results  of  dis- 
obedience.   Chapters  27-28. 

The  Covenant  at  Moab  and  Moses'  farewell  and  death. 
Chapters  29-34. 


SECOND   DIVISION 

THE   PEOPHETS 
Section  I.    The  Former  Prophets 

PRELIMINARY    STATEMENT 

The  second  of  the  three  divisions  of  the  Hebrew  canon 
is  the  D^K^DJor  Prophets,  so-called  not  because  of  the 
prophetic  contents  of  the  books  but  because  of  the 
prophetic  office  of  the  writers.  These  are  divided  into 
the  D"'JiK>Nn  D^KUJ  or  Former  Prophets  and  the  D^Jiinx- 
D"'^<UJ  or  Latter  Prophets.  In  the  Hebrew  classifica- 
tion, each  of  these  subdivisions  contains  four  books,  the 
former  including  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel  and  Kings 
and  the  latter  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel  and  the  Twelve. 
Thus  the  double  books,  Samuel  and  Kings,  were  counted 
as  one  and  the  Minor  Prophets  as  one. 

The  Former  Prophets  trace  the  history  of  Israel  from 
the  prophetic  standpoint  from  the  beginning  of  Joshua's 
leadership  after  the  death  of  Moses  to  the  exile  in  Baby- 
lon, nearly  eight  hundred  years.  They  portray  the 
realization  of  the  national  life  foretold  in  the  Penta- 
teuch. 


149 


JOSHUA 

I.  Name.  The  book  is  named  in  all  ancient  and 
modern  versions  as  well  as  in  the  Hebrew  Bible  from  its 
principal  character,  Joshua.  This  name  has  four  forms 
Wn^  (Deut.  3:21;  Judges  2:7)  usually  yti^i.T,  occa- 
sionally yc'in  (Num.  13  :  8,  16;  Deut.  32  :  44)  and  later 
shortened  to  V^B^;.  (Neh.  8:17).  Stade  thinks  it  a 
Hiphil  of  V^l  It  is  better  to  consider  it  a  compound, 
meaning  "  Jehovah  is  salvation."  In  the  Septuagint  it 
is  called  7iy<roD?  NauT^  (Joshua  the  son  of  Nun)  and  in 
the  Vulgate  Liber  Josue. 

II.  Composition.  This  book  is  classed  by  the  divisive 
criticism  with  the  books  Gen.-Deut.  in  the  Hexateuch 
because  of  its  contents  but  especially  because  it  is  said 
to  have  originated  from  the  same  literary  sources  as  the 
Pentateuch.  Geddes,  1792,  was  the  first  to  count 
Joshua  with  the  Pentateuch  while  de  Wette,  Bleek  and 
Ewald  first  extended  to  it  the  documentary  theory. 
Driver  describes  its  origin  as  follows:  "In  chapters 
1-12  the  main  narrative  consists  of  a  work,  itself  also  in 
parts  composite,  which  appears  to  be  the  continuation 
of  J  E,  though  whether  its  component  parts  are  defi- 
nitely J  and  E,  or  whether  it  is  rather  the  work  of  the 
writers  who  combined  J  and  E,  into  a  whole,  and  in  this 
book,  perhaps,  permitted  himself  the  use  of  other  inde- 
pendent sources,  may  be  an  open  question.  The  use  of 
P  in  these  chapters  is  rare.     In  chapter  13-24,  on  the 

150 


JOSHUA  151 

contrary,  especially  in  the  topographical  descriptions,  the 
work  of  P  predominates,  and  the  passages  derived  from 
J  E  are  decidedly  less  numerous  than  in  the  first  part 
of  the  book.  There  is,  however,  another  element  in  the 
book  of  Joshua  besides  J  E  and  P.  In  this  book,  J  E, 
before  it  was  combined  with  P,  passed  through  the 
hands  of  a  writer  who  expanded  it  in  different  ways,  and 
who,  being  strongly  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  Deuter- 
onomy, may  be  termed  the  Deuteronomic  editor,  and 
denoted  by  the  abbreviation  D  2  "  (p.  104). 

Ansiuer. — 1.  This  view  depends  in  large  part  upon 
the  assumption  that  the  critical  analysis  of  the  Penta- 
teuch is  proven,  an  assumption  which  we  have  already 
shown  to  be  unfounded.  The  evident  uncertainty  of 
the  critics  in  the  application  of  the  principles  of  Penta- 
teuchal  analysis  to  the  book  of  Joshua  is  itself  an 
argument  against  that  analysis. 

2.  The  book  is  not  a  literary  part  of  the  Hexateuch. 
Historically  it  begins  an  entirely  new  epoch  under  a 
new  leader.  If  the  fact  that  it  continues  the  history 
of  the  Pentateuch  be  used  as  an  argument  for  its 
literary  unity  with  the  Pentateuch,  it  is  evident  that 
Judges,  Samuel  and  Kings,  which  continue  the  history 
still  further  should  likewise  be  included. 

Baudissin  justifies  the  name  Hexateuch  only  on  the 
ground  that  Joshua  came  from  the  same  sources  as  the 
first  five  books.  He  adds:  "It  cannot  be  said  with 
definiteness,  how  far  the  book,  as  it  lies  before  us,  ever 
formed  a  whole  with  the  Pentateuch  "  ("  Die  Bucher  des 
A.  T.,''  p.  170).  Cornill  likewise  concludes  that  Joshua 
was  separated  from  the  Pentateuch,  at  least  so  far  as 
P  is  concerned,  before  the  time  of  Ezra  ("  Einleitung," 
p.  83)   and  affirms:    "Joshua  presents  an  essentially 


152     OLD    TESTAMEi^T    INTEODUCTION" 

different  physiognomy  from  the  Pentateuch"  (p.  80). 
The  style  and  vocabulary  of  Joshua  as  well  as  certain 
grammatical  forms  differ  radically  from  the  Pentateuch. 
Strack  mentions  these  examples  (p.  63). 

^\n  nfia  found  four  times  in  Joshua  but  in  Pent* 

h]n  ^J3  (Deut.  3:18.) 

nont'Sn  OV  five  times  in  Joshua  but  nowhere  else  in 

T  T  :  •  ~       ~ 

the  Old  Testament  while  the  Pentateuch  uses  non^Qn  ^tJ>J« 

pVJ^     (Josh  8: 16)  not  in  the  Pentateuch. 

"  Jahve,  the  God  of  Israel,"  found  fourteen  times  in 
Joshua  but  only  twice  in  the  Pentateuch  (Ex.  5:1;  32: 
27).  These  peculiarities  of  Joshua  Strack  explains  as 
evidences  of  material  not  found  in  the  Pentateuch.  He 
also  mentions  a  few  others  which  he  considers  to  be  due 
to  carelessness  in  the  preservation  of  the  text  of  Joshua 
as  compared  with  that  of  the  Pentateuch. 

xiDi^  (Josh.  24: 19)  but  in  the  Pentateuch  N3p.  inT 
or  inn/^  in  Joshua  but  inn;,    in  the  Pentateuch. 

?<^n  in  Joshua  but  in  the  Pentateuch  often  Nin  This 
list  may  be  largely  extended.-  The  explanation  of  Strack 
for  these  phenomena  is  unsatisfactory.  Even  Cornill's 
theory,  that  the  book  of  Joshua  from  an  early  period 
had  a  history  entirely  independent  of  the  Pentateuch, 
is  not  sufficient.  The  facts  point  clearly  to  difference  of 
authorship. 

3.  The  same  arguments  which  prove  the  unity  of 
Genesis  and  the  other  books  of  Moses,  prove  the  unity 
of  Joshua.  The  book  proceeds  upon  a  consistent  plan 
and  there  is  no  satisfactory  evidence  which  can  justify 
its  analysis. 

III.    Author.    No  certain  answer  can  be  given  to  the 


JOSHUA  153 

question  of  the  authorship  of  the  book.  The  Talmudic 
tradition  which  many  Christian  writers,  both  ancient 
and  modern,  have  followed,  that  Joshua  wrote  it,  is 
based  upon  the  statement  of  Josh.  24 :  26  that  "  Joshua 
wrote  these  words  in  the  book  of  the  Law  of  God." 
The  traditional  name  of  the  book  does  not  necessarily 
imply  that  Joshua  was  its  author.  It  may  have  re- 
ceived his  name  as  the  principal  actor.  Still  the  fact 
that  the  book  terminates  with  Joshua's  death  as  the 
books  of  Moses  with  Moses'  death  makes  this  theory 
natural. 

Others  have  suggested  that  Eleazar  or  Phinehas  wrote 
it  from  material  composed  by  Joshua.  The  essential 
thing  is  that  it  was  composed  by  a  contemporary  of 
Joshua  or  so  soon  after  his  time  that  the  history  it 
contains  is  reliable.  Strack  evidently  feels  the  danger 
of  giving  the  book  a  later  date,  for  he  endeavors  to 
retain  its  credibility  by  the  unwarranted  assumption 
that  it  contains  very  ancient  traditions  *^  in  part  perhaps 
even  from  the  time  of  Joshua."  Other  critics  boldly 
assert  that  its  history  is  unreliable  and  especially  that 
its  account  of  the  sudden  conquest  of  Canaan  in  Joshua's 
lifetime  is  far  less  probable  than  the  gradual  conquest 
which  is  said  to  be  an  underlying  conception  of  the 
book  of  Judges.  The  allusion  to  the  Book  of  Jasher 
(Josh.  10: 13  compare  II  Sam.  1: 18)  does  not  require 
a  date  after  the  time  of  David,  for  the  Book  of  Jasher 
was  probably  not  written  at  one  time  but  was  a  collec- 
tion of  poems  recounting  heroic  deeds,  to  which 
additions  were  made  from  time  to  time. 

On  the  other  hand  Josh.  15 :  63  must  have  been 
written  before  the  time  of  David  (II  Sam.  5:7)  and 
Josh.   16:10  before  the  time  of   Solomon    (I   Kings 


154     OLD    TESTAMEXT    IXTRODUCTIOX 

9:16).  A  comparison  of  Josh.  15:17  with  Judges 
1 :  13  and  of  Josh.  19  :  47  with  Judges  18 :  29  seems  to 
point  to  the  time  of  the  Judges  as  the  period  when  the 
hook  was  written.  Apparently  the  writer  had  crossed 
the  Jordan  with  Israel  (5:1)  and  wrote  before  the 
death  of  Eahab  (6:25).  There  is  no  historical  evidence 
for  the  critical  assumption  that  together  with  the  other 
books  of  the  second  division  of  the  canon,  Joshua  did 
not  become  canonical  until  long  after  it  was  written 
(300-200  B.C.) 

IV.  Purpose.  The  book  is  historically  the  connect- 
ing link  between  the  preparatory  stages  of  Israel's  life 
as  recounted  in  the  Pentateuch  and  their  settled  national 
life  in  Canaan.  It  records  the  passage  from  the  wilder- 
ness to  Canaan  as  Exodus  had  recorded  the  passage  from 
Eg}^pt  to  the  wilderness.  Thus  the  miraculous  passage 
of  the  Jordan  has  somewhat  the  same  place  in  the  book 
of  Joshua  as  the  miraculous  passage  of  the  Eed  Sea  in 
the  book  of  Exodus. 

Joshua  is  related  to  the  later  books  of  Moses  as 
fulfilment  is  related  to  promise.  The  man  Joshua 
underwent  a  long  period  of  testing  for  his  great  office. 
His  leadership  of  Israel  against  Amalek  at  Rephidim, 
his  companionship  with  !Moses  in  the  sacred  privilege 
of  revelation  on  Mt.  Sinai,  and  his  steadfast  faith  in 
believing  with  Caleb  that  God  was  able  to  conquer  the 
land  of  promise  for  Israel  were  a  peculiar  equipment 
to  take  up  the  work  where  ^Moses  had  laid  it  down. 
Eor  this  God  had  appointed  him  before  Moses'  death 
(Deut.  1:38;  Josh.  1:1).  The  book  which  bears  his 
name  is  related  to  the  Pentateuch,  somewhat  as  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  related  to  the  Gospels.  It  records 
the  beginning  of  the  settled  national  life  for  which  all 


JOSHUA  155 

the  preparations,  historical  and  legislative,  are  found  in 
the  books  of  Moses. 

On  the  other  hand  Joshua  carries  the  history  only 
through  one  generation,  until  the  land  had  been  divided 
by  lot  and  Joshua,  the  last  connecting  link  with  Moses, 
the  Lawgiver  and  founder  of  the  nation,  had  given  his 
farewell  addresses.  There  the  book  of  Judges  takes  up 
the  history. 

V.    Divisions. 

1.  The  conquest  of  the  land.    Chapters  1-12. 
a.  God  charges  Joshua.    Chapter  1. 

&.  The  spies  at  Jericho.    Chapter  2. 

c.  The  passage  of  the  Jordan.    Chapter  3. 

d.  Preparations  for  the  conquest.    Chapters  4-5. 

e.  Capture  of  Jericho.    Chapter  6. 

/.  Defeat,  then  conquest  of  Ai.     Chapters  7-8. 
g.  Gibeon  spared.    Other  conquests.    Chapters  9-12. 

2.  Division  of  the  land.  Chapters  13-22.  Inheritance 
by  tribes,  special  inheritance  of  Caleb,  cities  of  refuge, 
and  cities  for  the  Levites,  concluding  with  the  return 
of  the  trans-Jordanic  tribes. 

3.  Farewell  address,  death,  and  burial  of  Joshua. 
Chapters  23-24. 


II 

JUDGES 

I.  Name.  The  book  is  named  in  the  oldest  Jewish 
records  D^tpDie^  "iSD  or  simply  D^psity  from  the  men  who 
delivered  and  ruled  over  Israel  in  the  period  between 
Joshua  and  Samuel.  This  title  is  transliterated  by 
Origen  and  translated  in  the  Septuagint,  Peshitta,  and 
Vulgate.    Hence  it  has  been  adopted  in  modern  versions. 

II.  Composition.  There  is  considerable  divergence 
among  the  critics  concerning  the  details  of  the  composi- 
tion of  the  book,  especially  on  two  points:  (1)  whether 
the  same  sources,  J  and  E,  which  are  said  to  be  found  in 
the  Hexateuch  are  present  also  in  Judges,  or  whether 
the  sources  of  Judges  are  different  from  those  in  the 
Hexateuch  and  (2)  whether  the  main  body  of  the  book 
is  based  upon  an  earlier  pre-Deuteronomic  book  (before 
621  B.  C.  when  Deuteronomy  is  said  to  have  been  found 
in  the  temple) .  There  is  practical  agreement  however  in 
the  opinion  that  the  introduction  (1 : 1  to  2  :  5)  and  the 
appendices  (chapters  17-18  and  19-21)  are  later  addi- 
tions, many  critics  considering  these  two  appendices  to 
have  been  by  different  authors.  The  Song  of  Deborah 
(Judges  5)  and  the  story  of  Abimelech  (Judges  9)  are 
generally  considered  older  than  the  other  parts  of  the 
book. 

The  clearest  and  most  highly  developed  form  of  the 
critical  opinion  concerning  the  main  portion  of  this  book 
(2:6  to  16:31)  is  that  of  Moore  who  agrees  in  the 
main  with  Budde.    The  former  describes  it  as  follows : 

156 


JUDGES  157 

"  Early  in  the  ninth  century  the  traditions  of  the  inva- 
sion and  settlement  of  Western  Palestine,  of  the  sub- 
sequent conflicts  in  various  parts  of  the  land  with  the 
native  population  or  with  nev^  invaders,  and  of  the 
heroic  deeds  of  Israel's  leaders  and  champions  in  these 
struggles,  were  collected  and  fixed  in  writing,  probably 
as  part  of  a  historical  work  which  included  the  patri- 
archal age,  the  immigration  from  Egypt,  and  the  history 
of  Israel  under  the  kingdom  down  to  the  author's  own 
time  (J)." 

"Perhaps  a  century  later  another  book  of  similar 
character  and  scope  was  written,  containing  in  part  the 
same  stories,  but  in  a  form  adhering  less  closely  to  his- 
torical reality  (E).  A  second  recension  of  this  work 
(E  2)  bears  very  distinctly  the  impress  of  the  prophetic 
movement  of  the  8th  century,  and  specifically  of 
Hosea's  teaching,  and  may  be  assigned  to  the  end  of  the 
8th  or  the  beginning  of  the  7th  century.  .  .  .  The 
Book  of  Judges  in  J  E  seems  to  have  begun  with  the 
death  of  Joshua,  and  to  have  closed  with  the  great  dis- 
course of  Samuel  (I  Sam.  12)  a  division  which  certainly 
existed  in  E.  It  probably  contained  all  the  stories  of 
our  Judges  except  that  of  Othniel;  and  in  view  of  the 
character  of  the  succeeding  redactions,  Eje  (the  Ee- 
dactor  who  combined  J  and  E)  may  with  greater  justice 
than  D  (the  later  Deuteronomic  editor)  be  regarded 
as  the  true  author  of  the  Ijook.  J  E  is  a  work  of  the 
7th  century  but  antedates  the  reforms  of  Josiah  (621 
B.C.)  and  the  dominant  influence  of  Jeremiah  and  the 
Deuteronomy.  Early  in  the  6th  century  an  author 
belonging  to  the  Deuteronomic  school  took  this  work 
as  the  basis  of  his  own.  As  the  traces  of  his  hand  do 
not  extend  to  I  Sam.  1-12  nor  to  Judges  1:1  to  2:5; 


158     OLD    TESTAMENT    IXTEODUCTIOX 

lT-21,  we  infer  that  D's  book  included  only  Judges  2 :  6 
to  16:  31  (or  perhaps  15:  20).  .  .  .  The  Deuteronomic 
Judges  did  not  supplant  the  older  work  upon  which 
it  was  founded.  J  E's  history  was  in  existence  long 
after  the  exile.  In  the  5th  or  4th  century  B.C.,  an 
editor  united  the  two  books,  and  produced  the  present 
Book  of  Judges"  (Commentary  on  Judges,  G.  F. 
]\Ioore,  pp.  xxxiii-xxxv). 

Answer. — Two  points  are  concerned  in  this  critical 
view,  the  unity  of  the  book  and  the  date  of  its  author- 
ship. The  unity  of  the  book  is  evidenced  by  its  orderly 
arrangement  which  would  be  incredible  if  it  came  into 
its  present  form  in  the  way  described.  Eichard  Yalpy 
French  (Lex  Mosaica  pp.  198-199)  has  adduced  the 
following  linguistic  evidences  of  unity: 

1.  Between  the  main  body  of  the  book  and  the 
appendix. 

?lt^  of  troops  (4:6-7;  20:37). 

no^p;  D^P'Q  (11:40;  21:19). 

ViB     (8:21;  15:12;  18:25). 

pvp  (6:34-35;  18:22-23,  etc.). 

^1":  ^^  (3:22;  8:10,  20;  9:54;  20:2,  15,  17,  25, 

35,46). 

2.  Between  the  appendix  and  the  introduction. 
Compare  1 : 1-2  with  20 :  18,  23,  27. 
nntJ^^^i^xv  (1:27,  35;  17:11;  19:6). 

^V^2  nW  (1:8;  20:48). 

2in  'pb  nsn    (1:8,  25;  20:48). 

T^  inj  (1:2;  18:10;  20:28). 

3.  Between  the  introduction  and  the  main  body  of 
the  book : 


JUDGES  159 

1 :  16  compare  4: 11. 

mn  Drn  n5;(l:21;  6:24;  10:4;  15:  19;  19:30). 

T?  ID?  (1:^;  3:14,  23;  6:1;  7:7,  13:1;  15:12; 
18:10;  20:28). 

Though  it  is  altogether  probable  that  the  author  made 
use  of  previous  written  traditions  coming  from  the  time 
of  the  Judges,  there  is  not  sufficient  evidence  that  he 
embodied  these  sources  in  his  work  or  that  the  book 
went  through  so  many  successive  redactions. 

III.  Author.  For  our  knowledge  of  the  date  of 
the  author  of  the  book  we  are  entirely  dependent  upon 
Hebrew  tradition  and  internal  evidence.  These  two 
witnesses  are  in  remarkable  agreement.  According  to 
Eabbinic  tradition  Samuel  was  the  author.  Internal 
evidence  confines  the  date  of  the  book  to  about  Samuel's 
time.  The  statement  of  Judges  1:21  that  "  the  Jebu- 
sites  dwell  with  the  children  of  Benjamin  in  Jerusalem 
unto  this  day"  could  not  have  been  written  after 
David's  conquest  of  the  stronghold  of  Zion  (II  Sam. 
5:6-8)  nor  the  statement  of  Judges  1:29  that  the 
Canaanites  dwelt  in  Gezer  after  Pharaoh  burned  the 
city,  drove  out  the  Canaanites,  and  gave  it  to  Solomon 
(I  Kings  9:16).  Furthermore  Isaiah  9  contains  sev- 
eral references  to  Judges  4,  5,  and  6,  and  the  name 
Jerubbaal  (Judges  6  :  32)  seems  to  have  been  changed  to 
Jerubbesheth  (II  Sam.  11:21)  in  the  time  of  David. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  statement  found  four  times  in 
Judges,  "  In  those  days  there  was  no  king  in  Israel " 
(17:6;  18:1;  19:1;  21:25)  to  which  twice  is  added 
"  Every  man  did  that  which  was  right  in  his  own  eyes  " 
(17:6;  21:25)  seems  to  imply  that  the  writer  lived 
after  the  establishment  of  the  kingdom.  Thus  we  are 
driven  to  the  conclusion  of  French :   "  The  strongest 


160     OLD    TESTAMENT    mTEODUCTIOIT 

probability  exists  from  the  foregoing  data  for  assign- 
ing the  authorship  of  the  Book  to  Samuel  or  to  one  of 
his  prophetic  school.  The  period  was  either  the  time 
of  Saul  or  the  early  years  of  the  reign  of  David  '^  ("  Lex 
Mosaica/'p.  191). 

IV.  Purpose.  The  book  of  Judges  records  all  that 
is  known  of  the  history  of  Israel  from  the  death  of 
Joshua  to  the  time  of  Samuel,  a  period  of  about  four 
centuries.  It  shows  the  increasing  desire  of  the  people 
for  some  leader  like  the  nations  around  them,  a  desire 
which  culminated  in  the  days  of  Samuel  in  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  king.  God  did  not  yield  to  this  desire  imme- 
diately but  from  time  to  time  called  forth  special  deliv- 
erers, whose  work  resembled  that  of  a  king.  The  judges 
however  were  not  chosen  from  any  one  tribe,  nor  was 
there  a  regular  succession  of  them.  They  were  excep- 
tional and  their  tenure  of  office  was  temporary.  Indeed 
they  were  rather  generals  than  judges,  in  the  English 
sense.  A  similar  name  is  known  to  have  existed  in 
Phenicia  and  Livy  speaks  of  the  rulers  of  Carthage 
as  "  suffetes." 

The  purpose  of  this  book  was  not  historical  but  relig- 
ious. It  was  intended  by  repeated  instances  from 
Israel's  past  to  show  how  God  punished  his  people  for 
their  sins  and  forgave  and  delivered  them,  when  they 
repented.  As  in  the  other  historical  books  long  periods 
are  passed  by  without  a  word  and  in  the  so-called  minor 
judges  (Shamgar,  Tola,  Jair,  Ibzan,  Elon,  and  Abdon) 
the  statements  are  very  brief.  The  heroic  deeds  of  all 
the  judges  are  represented  as  being  done  by  power  re- 
ceived from  God.  The  period  was  one  of  apostasy. 
And  yet  there  remained  a  few  who  continued  to  worship 
Jehovah.     This   is   evidenced   by   the   mention   of   the 


JUDGES  161 

tabernacle  at  Shiloh  (18:31)  of  the  annual  feast  (21: 
19)  of  the  highest  priest  and  the  ark  of  the  covenant 
(20:27-28).  Furthermore  sacrifices  were  offered  (13: 
15-16,  23;  20:26;  21:4)  circumcision  was  observed 
(14:3;  15:18)  and  vows  were  made  unto  Jehovah 
(11:30;  13:5). 
V.    The  Judges  and  Their  Chronology: 

YEARS. 

3 :  8  Bondage  to  Cushan-rishathaim 8 

3:11  Judgeship  of  Othniel 40 

3  :  14  Bondage  to  Eglon IS 

3:30  Peace  with  Ehud  and  Shamgar 80 

4 :  3  Oppression  by  Jabni 20 

5  :  31  Judgeship  of  Barak 40 

6  : 1  Servitude  to  Midian  and  allies 7 

8 :  28  Judgeship  of  Gideon 40 

9 :  22  Rule  of  Abimelech 3 

10 :  2  Judgeship  of  Tola 23 

10  :  3  Judgeship  of  Jair 22 

10 :  8  Oppression  by  Ammonites 18 

12  :  7  Judgeship  of  Jephthah 6 

12  :  9  Judgeship  of  Ibzan 7 

12  :  11  Judgeship  of  Elon 10 

12 :  14  Judgeship  of  Abdon 8 

13 : 1  Bondage  to  Philistines 40 

15:20)  ^   ,      ,  .       ,  ^ 

16 :  31j  Judgeship  of  Samson 20 

410 
If  the  forty  years  in  the  wilderness,  the  administration 
of  Joshua,  the  forty  years  of  Eli  (I  Sam.  4: 18),  the 
rule  of  Samuel,  the  reigns  of  Saul  and  David  (the  latter 
40  years,  I  Kings  2 :  11)  and  four  years  of  Solomon  be- 
fore the  temple  was  built,  are  added,  the  total  is  much 


162     OLD    TESTAMENT    INTEODUCTION 

more  than  the  480  years  mentioned  in  I  Kings  6 : 1  from 
the  Exodus  to  the  building  of  the  temple.  Herzfeld  and 
others  have  attempted  to  harmonize  by  the  theory  that 
some  of  the  periods  mentioned  in  Judges  were  synchro- 
nous. The  statements  of  the  book,  however,  hardly  admit 
of  such  an  interpretation.  Noldeke  has  offered  another 
h}^othesis,  that  the  480  years  of  I  Kings  6 :  1  omits 
according  to  Oriental  custom  the  periods  of  bondage  to 
the  surrounding  nations.  Xeither  of  these  theories  is 
satisfactory  and  we  must  remain  content  without  an 
explanation  until  we  have  further  light  on  this  diflScult 
question. 


Ill 

SAMUEL 

I.  Name.  These  two  books  were  one  among  the 
Hebrews  and  named  7N1DK>  not  only  because  Samuel 
was  the  principal  actor  in  the  first  part  of  the  book 
but  because  he  anointed  Saul  and  David,  the  other 
principal  actors.  The  name  means  "  name  of  God." 
The  Septuagint  divided  this  book  and  named  its  parts 
together  with  the  two  books  of  Kings  ^i^Xot  l^affcXetwv. 
Hence  I  and  II  Samuel  were  called  the  first  and  second 
Books  of  the  Kingdoms.  The  Vulgate  altered  the  title 
to  Libri  Eegum,  the  Books  of  the  Kings.  The  division 
of  the  books  was  first  introduced  into  the  Hebrew  in  the 
Eabbinical  Bible  of  Daniel  Bomberg  in  1516.  The 
English  Bible  has  adopted  a  compromise,  taking  the 
division  of  the  books  from  the  Vulgate  and  Septuagint 
and  the  name  from  the  Hebrew  Bible.  The  authorized 
version  adds  to  the  title  "otherwise  called  the  First 
Book  of  the  Kings"  and  "the  Second  Book  of  the 
Kings." 

II.  Composition.  The  Books  of  Samuel,  like  the 
earlier  books,  are  considered  by  modern  critics  to  be 
of  composite  origin  and  the  result  of  one  or  more  redac- 
tions. There  is  a  difference  of  opinion  concerning  the 
identification  of  the  sources.  Cornill,  Budde,  and 
Schrader  identify  the  older  document  with  J  of  the 
Hexateuch  and  the  younger  with  E.  The  majority  of 
critics  differ  from  them  at  this  point.     Stenning  de- 

163 


164:  OLD  TESTAMEXT  INTEODUCTION 

scribes  the  origin  of  the  books  in  this  way :  "  The  older 
narrative  may  be  assigned  approximately  to  the  9th 
century,  while  the  later  stratum  of  E  (Budde's  El.), 
which,  though  old,  yet  treats  the  history  from  a  more 
subjective  standpoint,  dates  probably  from  the  following 
century.  .  .  .  As  in  the  Hexateuch  and  in  Judges, 
these  sources  were  combined  and  welded  together  by  a 
later  editor  (Eje)  who  has  however  carried  out  his  work 
in  a  less  thorough  manner.  His  work  is  in  any  case 
prior  to  the  reforms  of  Josiah  (621  B.C.)  and  to  the 
influence  of  Deuteronomy,  and  must  be  placed  in  the 
•/th  century.  The  present  form  of  the  Books  of  Samuel 
is  largely  due  to  an  author  of  the  Deuteronomic  school 
whose  hand  may  be  clearly  traced  in  the  concluding 
summaries  (I  Sam.  11:47-51;  II  Sam.  8)  and  in 
various  chronological  notices  (I  Sam.  7:2;  13:1;  II 
Sam.  2:10a,  11;  5:4-5)^'  (In  Easting's  Bible  Dic- 
tionary). 

The  arguments  for  the  partition  of  the  hooTcs  of 
Samuel  are  similar  to  those  used  in  the  partition  of  the 
Hexateuch.  They  are  classed  by  Smith  under  two 
heads. 

1.  "  Duplication  of  certain  incidents.  Two  denun- 
ciations of  Eli's  course  are  related,  either  one  of  which 
abundantly  answers  the  author's  purpose.  There  are 
two  accounts  of  Saul's  rejection  and  the  second  makes 
no  allusion  to  the  earlier.  The  two  (or  three)  accounts 
of  Saul's  appointment  as  king  are  probably  another 
example.  Two  accounts  of  David's  coming  to  court 
have  long  given  trouble  to  the  harmonist.  We  have 
tvvo  sets  of  negotiations  for  Saul's  daughter,  the  later 
being  ignorant  of  the  earlier  one.  There  are  at  least 
two  accounts  of  David's  flight  from  court,  two  of  liis 


SAMUEL  165 

having  Saul  in  his  power,  two  of  his  seeking  refuge 
with  Achish,  two  of  the  death  of  Saul. 

2.  Difference  in  style  and  point  of  view. 

In  one  place  Samuel  appears  as  the  theocratic  ruler 
of  the  people,  comparable  to  Moses,  and  to  Moses  alone, 
among  the  heroes  of  Israel.  He  administers  the  gov- 
ernment as  the  representative  of  Yahweh.  The  whole 
people  gather  at  his  call,  and  he  rebukes  and  commands 
with  more  than  kingly  authority.  In  another  place,  he 
is  the  seer  of  a  small  town,  respected  as  one  who  blesses 
the  sacrifice  and  presides  at  the  local  festival,  but 
known  only  as  a  clairvoyant,  whose  information  con- 
cerning lost  or  strayed  property  is  reliable.  Even  thus 
he  is  unknown  to  Saul,  whose  home  is  only  a  few  miles 
away.  With  this  difference  of  view  goes  a  difference  of 
political  theory.  In  one  account  Saul  is  chosen  as  king 
by  God,  is  welcomed  by  Samuel,  is  assured  that  God  is 
with  him  and  encouraged  to  act  as  he  finds  opportunity. 
His  election  by  God  is  an  act  of  grace,  for  God  has 
looked  upon  the  affliction  of  His  people,  and  now  prom- 
ises that  Saul  shall  deliver  them  from  the  hand  of  the 
Philistines.  But  in  other  sections  of  the  narrative  the 
desire  of  the  people  for  a  king  is  an  act  of  rebellion 
against  Yahweh.  Their  act  is  an  act  of  apostasy,  paral- 
lel to  all  their  rebellions  of  earlier  times.  No  wonder; 
for  to  this  narrator  the  Philistine  oppression  has  already 
been  relieved  by  Samuel.  By  spiritual  weapons  these 
enemies  have  been  vanquished  so  that  they  come  no  more 
into  the  territory  of  Israel  and  even  surrender  the  ter- 
ritory which  they  had  taken  away"  (Commentary  on 
Samuel  pp.  15-16). 

Answer. — The  general  arguments  against  this  falla- 
cious method  of  dividing  the  Hebrew  literature  have 


166     OLD    TESTAMEXT    IXTRODUCTIOX 

been  so  fully  given  in  the  chapter  on  the  Pentateuch, 
that  they  cannot  be  repeated  in  detail.  The  unity 
of  the  book  is  evidenced  by  the  following  considera- 
tions : 

1.  The  orderly  arrangements  of  the  history.  Events 
are  not  always  given  in  chronological  order.  Neverthe- 
less a  clear  and  consistent  plan  is  evident  throughout. 
This  plan  could  not  have  been  the  work  of  the  two 
editors,  unless  they  altered  their  sources  and  merged 
them  into  one  beyond  later  recognition. 

2.  It  is  incredible  that  the  editors  could  have  allowed 
such  evident  repetitions  to  remain  in  the  books.  In 
their  opinion,  the  alleged  parallels  and  contradictions 
could  not  have  been  such.  Even  now  respect  for  the 
intelligence  of  R  requires  us  if  possible  to  harmonize  the 
accounts.  In  most  cases  this  is  easily  done.  Many  of 
the  parallels  are  accounts  of  different  though  similar 
events.  Others  are  records  of  the  same  event  from  two 
different  standpoints.  Others  still  are  not  parallels  at 
all  but  brief  allusions  to  events  already  narrated  which 
have  special  bearing  on  subsequent  history. 

3.  Relation  of  the  parts  of  the  books  to  each  other. 
Driver  admits  this :  "  Some  of  the  narratives  contained 
in  I-II  Samuel  point  forwards  or  backwards  to  one 
another,  and  are  in  other  ways  so  connected  together 
as  to  show  that  they  are  the  work  of  one  and  the  same 
writer"   (p.  173). 

4.  The  differences  in  point  of  view  are  not  evidence 
of  variety  of  authorship.  It  is  altogether  natural  that 
Samuel  was  held  in  different  esteem  by  different  people 
and  at  different  periods  of  his  life,  and  it  is  according 
to  God's  dealings  with  His  people  in  all  times,  that 
while  their  lack  of  faith  in  desiring  a  king  is  condemned. 


SAMUEL  167 

God  promises  great  things  by  that  king,  thus  making 
the  wrath  of  man  to  praise  Him. 

5.  Uniform  diction.  There  are  certain  expressions 
running  all  through  the  book  which  bind  it  into  one. 
Of  these  Driver  mentions  among  others  "as  thy  soul 
liveth,"  "sons  of  Belial/'  "Jehovah  of  Hosts/'  "so 
may  God  do  and  more  also,  "  "  from  Dan  even  to  Beer- 
sheba,"  "as  Jehovah  liveth/'  and  "blessed  be  thou  of 
Jehovah."  His  explanation,  that  "  they  appear  to  have 
formed  part  of  the  phraseology  current  at  the  time/'  is 
unsatisfactory.  These  and  other  expressions  refute  the 
contention  of  the  critics  that  differences  of  style  are 
discernible  in  the  so-called  parallel  accounts. 

III.  Author.  Concerning  the  authorship  of  the 
books  of  Samuel  we  have  very  little  internal  or  external 
testimony.  The  statement  of  I  Sam.  27:  6  ("Wherefore 
Ziklag  pertaineth  unto  the  kings  of  Judah  unto  this 
day")  does  not  require  a  date  after  the  separation  of 
the  northern  kingdom.  The  distinction  between  Israel 
and  Judah  existed  in  David's  time,  for  David  reigned 
at  first  only  over  Judah  and  Ishbosheth  over  Israel 
(I  Sam.  18  :  6 ;  II  Sam.  2  :  10 ;  24 :  1) .  The  expression 
"unto  this  day"  (I  Sam.  27:6;  30:25)  does  not 
require  a  later  date  than  the  end  of  David's  reign.  The 
rabbinical  tradition,  that  Samuel  was  the  author,  is 
opposed  by  the  continuance  of  the  history  so  far  beyond 
the  death  of  Samuel  (I  Sam.  25:1).  The  fact  that 
David's  death  is  not  recorded,  makes  it  probable  that  the 
books  were  written  before  it  occurred,  with  the  aid  of 
older  documents. 

IV.  Purpose.  The  books  of  Samuel  recount  the 
establishment  of  the  kingdom.  They  are  very  closely 
connected  in  the  history  of  Samuel  himself  with  the 


168     OLD    TESTAMENT    INTEODUCTION 

book  of  Judges,  for  Samuel  is  called  a  judge  (I  Sam. 
7:6,  15-17)  as  Eli,  the  high-priest,  was  before  him 
(I  Sam.  4:18).  The  times  of  Samuel  before  the 
anointing  of  Saul  were  times  of  the  same  religious 
apostasy  and  ignorance  which  prevailed  in  the  days  of 
the  judges  (I  Sam.  2: 12-17;  3:1,  etc.). 

Samuel  was  also  a  prophet  (I  Sam.  3:20).  He  was 
classed  in  the  Old  Testament  with  Moses  and  Aaron 
(Ps.  99:  6;  Jer.  15:  1)  and  in  the  New  Testament  he 
is  mentioned  as  the  first  of  the  prophets  (Acts  3 :  24) 
and  as  the  terminus  ad  quern  of  the  time  of  the  judges 
(Acts  13:20).  His  establishment  of  the  schools  of 
the  prophets  (I  Sam.  19:20)  at  Eamah  was  followed 
by  others  at  Bethel  (II  Kings  2:3),  Jericho  (II  Kings 
2:5)  and  Gilgal  (II  Kings  4:38).  Thus  the  prophetic 
office  grew  up  side  by  side  with  the  kingly.  Of  both 
Samuel  was  the  founder.  Samuel  was  also  the  King- 
Jilaker.  Because  Saul's  reign  was  only  temporarily 
successful  and  because  David's  house  were  to  be  per- 
manent rulers,  no  record  of  the  establishment  of  the 
kingdom  could  stop  short  of  the  second  reign.  Samuel 
lived  to  anoint  David  but  died  before  he  came  to  the 
throne.  David's  reign  however  must  be  added  to  the 
story  of  regal  establishment  because  he  enlarged  the 
borders  of  the  land  to  its  greatest  extent,  captured  the 
stronghold  of  Zion,  and  made  it  his  capital.  Further- 
more the  promises  of  perpetual  dominion  to  the  house 
of  David  (II  Sam.  7:  12-16)  became  after  his  day  the 
cliarter  of  the  kingdom.  David  laid  the  foundations 
upon  which  all  true  kings  of  Israel  built.  With  his 
death  the  story  of  establishment  closes. 
V.  Divisions. 
1.  The  Judgeship  of  Samuel  I  Sam  1-7. 


SAMUEL  169 

a.  The  birth  of  Samuel  and  the  song  of  Hannah 

1 : 1  to  2  :  10. 
6.  The  childhood  and  vision  of  Samuel  2 :  11  to 

3:21. 

c.  The  death  of  Eli.    Chapter  4. 

d.  The  ark  in  Philistia.    Chapters  5-6. 

e.  The  ark  returned  and  the  Philistines  conquered. 

Chapter  7. 

2.  The  Eeign  of  Saul.    I  Sam.  8-31. 
a.  Israel  desires  a  king.    Chapter  8. 
&.  Saul  chosen.     Chapters  9-10. 

c.  Saul  conquers  Ammon.    Chapter  11. 

d.  The  address  of  Samuel.     Chapter  12. 

e.  SauFs  wars  and  rejection.     Chapters  13-15. 
/.   David  chosen.     Chapter  16. 

g.  His  prowess,  friendship  for  Jonathan  and  the 
increasing  hatred  of  Saul,  Sau?s  death.  Chap- 
ters 17-31. 

3.  The  Eeign  of  David.    II  Sam.  1-24. 

a.  David's    mourning    for    Saul  and    Jonathan. 

Chapter  1. 

&.  David's  establishment  as  King.  Chapters  2-5. 

c.  David's   purpose   to   build   the  temple   and   its 

refusal.     Chapters  6-7. 

d.  His   victories    and    kindness   to    Mephibosheth. 

Chapters  8-10. 

e.  David's  sin  and  marriage.     The  birth  of  Solo- 

mon.    Chapters  11-12. 
/.  Absalom's  vengeance  upon  Ammon.     Absalom's 

rebellion.     Chapters  13-19. 
g.  Sheba's  rebellion;  David's  song  and  last  words; 

his  sin  in  numbering  Israel.     Chapters  20-24. 


IV 

KINGS 

I.  Name.  In  the  Hebrew  Bible  these  two  were 
originally  one  book,  called  D^^JD  nSD  or  simply  D^^jp 
In  modern  Hebrew  Bibles,  since  the  Eabbinic  Bible  of 
Daniel  Bomberg  (Venice  1516-7),  the  division  is  intro- 
duced. The  Septuagint  classes  them  with  I  and  II 
Samuel  under  the  names  Baffdetwv  rpir-q  and  rtrdprr^. 
This  method  is  adopted  in  the  Vulgate  (Liber  Eegum 
tertius  and  quartus).  The  authorized  version  has  the 
title,  "  The  First  Book  of  the  Kings  commonly  called 
the  Third  Book  of  the  Kings,"  and  "  The  Second  Book 
of  the  Kings,  commonly  called  the  Fourth  Book  of  the 
Kings."  The  American  Revised  Version  drops  these 
secondary  titles. 

II.  Composition.  The  Books  of  Kings  refer  to  three 
different  sources  for  further  information: 

1.  The  Book  of  the  Acts  of  Solomon.  I  Kings  11 :  41. 

2.  The  Book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  Israel 
(17  times). 

3.  The  Book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  Judah 
(15  times). 

These  books  were  probably  official  contemporary 
records.  Mention  is  frequently  made  of  an  officer  of 
the  court  called  a  "i^HtD  recorder  or  remembrancer  (II 
Sam.  8  :  16 ;  20 :  24;  I  Kings  4 :  3 ;  II  Kings  18 :  18,  37 ; 
II  Chron.  34:8).  His  duties  probably  were  to  record 
the  important  events  of  the  reign,  as  was  done  also  at 

170 


KINGS  171 

the  Persian  court  (Ezra  4 :  15 ;  6  :  2 ;  Esther  2 :  23  ;  6 : 1) . 
These  and  other  similar  books  are  mentioned  as  sources 
of  the  Books  of  Chronicles  (II  Chron.  9:29;  12:15; 
13:22;  20:34).  We  know  that  one  of  these  official 
records  was  afterwards  "  inserted  in  the  book  of  the 
Kings  of  Israel"  (II  Chron.  20:34).  It  is  probable 
that  the  books  referred  to  by  the  author  of  Kings  were 
such  collections  of  royal  records.  The  author  was 
merely  an  editor  or  compiler  who  brought  together  all 
this  material,  adding  to  it  comments  of  his  own. 

Many  critics  think  that  the  compiler  also  used  other 
unnamed  sources.  He  epitomized  the  character  and 
reign  of  the  kings  by  certain  formulas  such  as  "  He  did 
that  which  was  evil  [or  that  which  was  good]  in  the 
e3'es  of  Jehovah."  It  is  worthy  of  comment  that  an 
unfavorable  verdict  is  passed  upon  all  the  kings  of 
Israel. 

Cornill,  Burney  and  others  distinguish  three  redac- 
tions of  the  book. 

1.  The  first  and  principal  redactor  who  wrote  in  the 
spirit  of  the  so-called  Deuteronomic  reform  about  600 
B.C.  This  date  is  determined  by  the  use  of  the  expres- 
sion "  unto  this  day  "  indicating  a  time  before  the  Exile 
(I  Kings  8:8;  9:21;  12:19;  II  Kings  8:22;  16:6). 
This  redactor  is  said  to  have  added  the  framework  of 
the  history.  He  is  the  real  editor  of  the  books  and  his 
existence  is  admitted  even  by  conservative  scholars, 
though  his  Deuteronomic  character  is  denied.  He  is 
called  Edl. 

2.  Certain  additions  are  said  to  have  been  made 
during  the  Exile.  The  most  important  of  these  are 
II  Kings  24:10  to  25:30  and  presumably  II  Kings 
^3:  31  to  24:  9.    The  date  is  determined  by  the  release 


172     OLD    TESTAMEXT    IXTEODLTTIOX 

of  Jehoiachin,  king  of  Judah,  by  Evil-Merodacli  in  the 
3Tth  year  of  the  reign  of  the  former,  that  is,  561  B.C. 
(II  Kings  25:27).  The  writer  however  apparently 
wrote  II  Kings  25:  30  after  the  death  of  Jehoiachin  of 
which  the  date  is  unknown.  On  the  other  hand  it  is 
asserted  by  the  critics  that  the  entire  absence  of  any 
hope  of  return  from  exile  in  these  books,  shows  that  this 
editor  must  have  done  his  work  before  the  decree  of 
Cyrus  in  536  B.C.     This  is  Ed2. 

3.  The  variations  between  the  Massoretic  Text  and 
that  of  the  Septuagint  are  said  to  indicate  the  work  of 
later  editors  who  transposed  certain  sections  and  in- 
serted additions  after  the  recension,  from  which  the 
Septuagint  was  made,  was  separated  from  that  which 
lies  at  the  basis  of  the  Massoretic  Text.  This  final 
editorial  work  is  assigned  by  Cornill  to  the  third  cen- 
tury B.C. 

Answer. — Concerning  these  critical  opinions,  it  is 
necessary  to  separate  the  proven  from  the  unproven. 
The  assumption  of  a  redaction  in  the  third  century  is 
altogether  unwarranted  as  the  considerations  of  the 
relation  of  the  Massoretic  Text  and  the  Septuagint  has 
showTi  (see  Chapter  on  the  Text).  The  marks  of  the 
time  before  the  Exile  indicate  that  the  body  of  the  book 
was  compiled  at  that  time,  and  the  marks  of  exilic  date 
are  evidence  of  a  later  addition,  which  need  not  have 
extended  to  the  main  portion  of  the  book.  The  book, 
as  we  now  have  it,  was  complete  in  the  last  half  of  the 
Exile  and  is  based  upon  contemporaneous  records. 

III.  Author.  Who  the  editor  was,  there  is  no  means 
of  determining.  Driver  says :  "  The  compiler  of  Kings 
though  not  probably  (as  has  sometimes  been  supposed), 
Jeremiah  himself,  was  nevertheless  a  man  like-minded 


KINGS  173 

with  Jeremiah  and  almost  certainly  a  contemporary 
who  lived  and  wrote  under  the  same  influences.  Deu- 
teronomy is  the  standard  by  which  the  compiler  judges 
both  men  and  actions;  and  the  history  from  the  begin- 
ning of  Solomon's  reign,  is  presented  not  in  purely 
objective  form,  but  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
Deuteronomic  code"  (p.  199).  According  to  the  Tal- 
mud Jeremiah  was  the  author.  The  fact  that  Jeremiah 
was  carried  into  Egypt  however  precludes  the  possibility 
of  his  having  written  the  story  of  the  deportation  and 
imprisonment  of  Jehoiachin  in  Babylon.  The  date  of 
the  author  and  his  prophetic  standpoint  are  reasonably 
clear  but  his  identity  remains  unknown. 

IV.  Purpose.  These  books  are  intimately  related  to 
the  two  books  of  Samuel  with  which  they  are  numbered 
in  the  Septuagint.  They  take  up  the  royal  and 
prophetic  history  where  Samuel  laid  it  down  and  carry 
it  forward  in  the  same  spirit.  The  books  of  Kings 
trace  the  history  of  the  united  kingdom  from  Solomon's 
accession  and  of  the  divided  kingdom  until  its  two  parts 
were  conquered  by  Assyria  and  Babylon.  This  period 
is  over  four  centuries  and  its  terminus  ad  quem  is  the 
release  of  Jehoiachin  by  Evil-Merodach  in  561  B.C. 
These  are  the  only  books  recording  the  entire  political 
history  of  Israel,  for  Chronicles  not  only  gives  no  record 
of  the  Northern  Kingdom,  but  seems  to  avoid  reference 
to  it.  In  all  the  history  the  kings  of  Judah  are  judged 
according  to  the  standard  of  David's  obedience  (I  Kings 
3:3;  11:4,  6;  14:8;  15:3,  11;  II  Kings  14:3;  16:3; 
18:3;  22:2)  and  the  kings  of  Israel  according  to  the 
standard  of  Jeroboam's  sin  (I  Kings  15:34;  16:2,  7, 
19,  26,  31;  22:52;  II  Kings  3:3;  10:29,  31;  13:2,  6, 
11;  14:24;  15:9,  18,  24,  28;  17:22-23).     Thus  the 


174     OLD    TESTAMENT    INTEODUCTIOK' 

history  of  the  two  kingdoms  presents  the  two  great  moral 
lessons:  (1)  Conformity  to  the  noble  standard  set  by 
the  fathers,  brings  peace  and  prosperity.  The  King- 
dom of  Judah  was  finally  overthrown  because  of  its 
neglect  of  the  high  standard  set  by  David.  (2)  Apos- 
tasy from  the  people  of  God  is  the  fruitful  cause  of 
many  generations  of  continued  sinfulness.  All  later 
sins  are  traced  back  to  that  of  Jeroboam  (II  Kings 
17:22-23). 

The  division  between  the  two  books  is  in  the  middle 
of  the  reign  of  Ahaziah  and  seems  to  have  no  special 
significance.  It  is  near  the  middle  of  the  entire  book 
and  therefore  a  convenient  dividing  place.  One  purpose 
runs  through  both  parts. 

The  great  prominence  given  to  the  work  of  the 
prophets  Elijah  and  Elisha  in  the  Northern  Kingdom 
is  also  similar  to  the  spirit  of  the  author  of  Samuel, 
who  had  recounted  SamuePs  activity  in  founding  the 
schools  of  the  prophets.  This  as  well  as  the  mention  of 
Isaiah  and  Jeremiah  indicates  the  prophetic  standpoint 
of  the  writer.  The  standpoint  of  the  books  of  Chron- 
icles being  priestly,  the  Northern  Kingdom  is  passed  by 
and  with  it  the  story  of  Elijah  and  Elisha. 

V.  Table  of  the  IfCings.  The  following  dates  agree 
with  the  well-established  dates  of  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  (586  B.C.)  and  of  the  fall  of  Samaria  (722 
B.C.).  The  other  dates,  derived  from  Assyrian  and 
Babylonian  inscriptions  vary  somewhat  from  these,  but 
with  the  possibility  of  error  in  fitting  them  to  the  Bible 
numbers,  as  well  as  the  possible  errors  in  transmission 
of  the  Bible  numbers,  greater  accuracy  is  not  attainable. 


IvIXGS 


175 


Judah, 

Saul 1099-1059 

David 1059-1019 

Solomon 1019-  979 

Eehoboam.  ...     979-  962 

Abijah 962-  959 

Asa 959-  918 


Jehoshaphat. . . .   918-893 

Jehoram 893-885 

Ahaziah 885 

Athaliah 885-879 

Jehoash 879-839 

Amaziah 839-810 

Azariah 810-758 


Jotham 758-742 

Ahaz 742-726 

Hezekiah 726-697 

Manasseh 697-642 

Amon 642-640 

Josiah 640-609 

Jehoahaz 609-608 


Israel, 


Jeroboam  I . .  979-957 

Nadab 957-955 

Baasha 955-932 

Zimri 932 

Tibni 932-928 

Omri 928-922 

Ahab 922-900 

Ahaziah 900-898 

Joram 898-886 

Jehu 886-858 

Jehoahaz 858-841 

Jehoash 841-825 

Jeroboam  II .  825-784 

(Interregnum.  784-772) 

Zachariah. ...  772 

Shallum 771 

Menahem....  771-761 

Pekahiah 761-759 

Pekah 759-739 

(Interregnum.  739-730) 

Hoshea 730-721 

Fall  of  Samaria        722 


176     OLD    TESTAMENT   INTEODUCTION 

Judah. 

Jehoiakim 608-597 

Jehoiachin 597 

Zedekiah 597-586 

Destruction      of 
Jerusalem 586 

VI.    Divisions. 

1.  The  Eeign  of  Solomon  over  the  united  Kingdom. 
I  Kings  1-11. 

a.  His  anointing.    Chapter  1. 

I.  The  death  of  David.    Chapter  2. 

c.  Solomon's    marriage    and    choice    of    wisdom. 

Chapter  3. 

d.  His  resources  and  alliance  with  Hiram.     Chap- 

ters 4-5. 

e.  The   building    and    dedication    of    the   temple. 

Chapters  6-8. 
/.  Solomon's    greatness,    wisdom    and     apostasy. 
Chapters  9-11. 

2.  History  of  the  Divided  Kingdom  till  the  captivity 

of  Israel.    I  Kings  12  to  II  Kings  IT. 
Special  prominence  is  given  in  this  section  to  the 
work  of  the  prophets  Elijah  and  Elisha. 

3.  History  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  till  the  Exile. 

II  Kings  18-25. 


Section  II.     The  Latter  Prophets 

preliminary:     Hebrew  prophecy 

I.  Names.  The  Old  Testament  prophets  receive  sev- 
eral different  names: 

1.  Man  of  God  (I  Sam.  9  :  6 ;  I  Kings  12  :  22 ;  17 :  18 ; 
II  Kings  4).  This  name  emphasizes  his  choice  by  God, 
his  obedience  to  God,  and  his  special  fellowship  with 
God. 

2.  Servant  of  Jehovah.  This  title  is  applied  to  others 
than  prophets  and  is  too  general  to  indicate  the  special 
work  of  the  prophet,  except  as  one  of  those  who  faith- 
fully carry  out  God's  will  upon  the  earth. 

3.  Messenger  of  Jehovah  (Is.  42:19;  Mai.  3:1). 
This  is  more  specific  and  implies  that  like  the  angels, 
the  prophets  were  sent  on  the  behests  of  God  to  do  His 
work.  It  also  suggests  the  idea  of  interpreting  God's 
will  to  His  people. 

4.  Seer.  This  name  is  found  in  two  forms,  n&^"i  and 
nfri.  Of  these  the  former,  derived  from  the  usual  verb, 
*^  to  see,"  is  less  common.  The  latter  verb  is  never  used 
of  merely  physical  seeing.  Both  these  words  view  the 
prophet  as  a  man  of  special  insight,  capable  of  seeing 
the  true  meaning  of  things  both  present  and  future. 
The  full  significance  of  these  words,  however,  requires 
the  reception  of  occasional  divinely  sent  visions,  which 
the  prophet  was  to  pass  on  to  the  people.  The  name, 
seer,  (  nxh  )  was  older  than  the  name  prophet  (I  Sam. 
9 : 9) . 

17T 


178     OLD    TESTA]^[EXT    IXTRODUCTION' 

5.  Prophet.  This  most  common  name  has  the  form 
N^3J.  Its  oriffin  is  somewhat  doubtful.  It  has  been 
commonly  considered  a  weakened  form  of  V3J  (Prov. 
18:4)  to  bubble  up,  to  gush  forth.  Hence  N^nj  is  a 
man  who  is  filled,  inspired,  in  an  ecstasy  vnth.  the  mes- 
sage he  has  to  give.  The  root  in  Arabic  means  to  be 
prominent  and  in  the  causative,  to  bring  into  prom- 
inence, to  announce.  In  Assyrian  "nabu"  means  to 
announce,  and  Xebo  is  the  Mercury,  the  interpreter  of 
the  Gods.  Hence  a  prophet  is  probably  one  who  an- 
nounces God^s  will,  who  speaks  for  and  from  God. 

II.  Function.  Prophecy  was  a  necessary  element 
in  the  conception  of  the  chosen  people.  "  The  Jewish 
people  were  merely  the  point  of  union,  merely  the 
elevated  conducting  rod,  so  to  speak,  pointing  to  heaven 
and  drawing  do^vTi  an  influence  to  be  distributed  speedily 
over  the  whole  earth"  (Davidson — Old  Testament 
Prophecy  p.  3).  The  prophets,  following  this  figure, 
were  the  highest  point  of  this  conducting  rod  through 
which  God's  will  was  imparted  to  Israel  and  thus  to 
all  mankind.  The  prophetic  office  in  a  sense,  belonged  to 
all  the  people  in  proportion  to  their  realization  of  the 
ideal  of  Israel.  Yet  from  time  to  time  God  called  cer- 
tain men  to  be  the  special  instruments  for  transmit- 
ting His  will.  Since  the  duties  of  the  prophets  were 
occasional,  the  office  was  never  hereditary,  like  the 
priesthood,  and  there  are  long  gaps  in  the  history  of 
prophecy. 

The  prophet  was  an  intense  believer  in  the  imma- 
nence of  God,  which  made  all  history  to  be  God's  work- 
ing out  of  His  eternal  purpose.  To  proclaim  this  view  of 
human  affairs  and  especially  of  Israel's  affairs  was  his 


HEBREW   PROPHECY  179 

divine  office.     Hence  prophecy  bore  a  peculiar  relation 
to  the  three  divisions  of  time. 

1.  The  Past.  The  prophets  viewed  history  from  the 
religious  and  moral  standpoint.  The  dealings  of  God 
in  times  past  were  a  fruitful  source  of  lessons  for  the 
present.  The  prophets  were  interpreters  of  history, 
focusing  its  light  upon  the  problems  of  the  present. 
Hence  the  so-called,  '^Former  Prophets''  (Joshua, 
Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings)  are  historical  books  written 
by  prophets.  They  are  not  complete  annals  of  events 
but  rather  "  history  with  a  moral." 

2.  The  Present.  It  is  with  the  present  that  prophecy 
has  chiefly  to  do.  History  and  prediction  are  both  made 
subservient  to  the  present.  The  past  is  described  and 
the  future  foretold  only  that  the  problems  of  the  pres- 
ent may  be  solved.  The  prophets  were  religious  re- 
formers in  times  of  apostasy  and  preachers  of  righteous- 
ness in  times  of  prosperity.  With  all  human  and  divine 
aid  they  addressed  themselves  to  the  conditions  before 
them.  Their  predictions  as  well  as  their  precepts  have 
their  application  for  the  present.  Hence  history  and 
prophecy  developed  side  by  side  in  Israel,  the  latter 
the  inspired  commentary  upon  the  former. 

3.  The  Future.  Prediction  forms  only  a  small  part 
of  prophecy.  It  was  not  the  most  essential  thing. 
Prophets  are  condemned,  even  when  their  predictions 
are  fulfilled,  if  they  counsel  the  people  to  worship  other 
Gods  (Deut.  13:1-5).  The  moral  and  religious  are 
the  essentials  of  prophecy.  And  yet  the  ability  to  fore- 
tell the  future  is  an  important  element  as  Davidson 
explains :  "  If  history  be  a  moral  process,  it  will  have 
a  goal  which  is  also  moral,  and  which  will  at  last  realize 
perfectly  its  principles,  seen  to  be  imperfectly  realized 


180     OLD    TESTAME^^T    lis^TEODUCTION" 

now.  Thus  arises  an  eschatolog}^  which  proclaims  that 
in  the  last  days  there  shall  be  established  a  universal 
kingdom  which  will  be  a  perfect  kingdom  of  God  upon 
the  earth,  being  an  everlasting  righteousness"  (p.  72). 
Yet  future  events  are  usually  described  as  if  present,  so 
strong  are  the  bonds  which  unite  the  prophet  to  his 
own  time. 

III.  History.  The  development  of  prophecy  was  in 
several  different  epochs. 

1.  Before  Moses.  Prophecy  began  with  the  protevan- 
gelium  in  Eden.  Enoch  foretold  the  coming  of  the 
Lord  with  ten  thousand  of  his  saints  (Jude  14).  ISToah 
prophesied  of  the  flood  and  afterwards  of  the  destinies 
of  his  descendants.  Abraham  was  a  prophet  of  the 
blessing  upon  his  seed  and  Jacob  foretold  the  destinies 
of  the  twelve  patriarchs.  Joseph's  dreams  were  also 
prophetic.  In  all  this  epoch  prophecy  was  almost  ex- 
clusively predictive  and  preparatory.  It  had  not  yet 
attained  its  full  development. 

2.  From  Moses  to  Samuel.  Moses  gave  an  entirely 
new  idea  to  prophecy.  His  work  was  almost  exclusively 
didactic.  Prediction  is  scarcely  found.  Yet  he  was  the 
greatest  Old  Testament  prophet  in  the  scriptural  sense 
of  the  word.  He  was  the  founder  of  prophecy  and  all 
later  prophets  of  the  Old  Covenant  were  interpreters 
and  followers  of  Moses.  In  intimacy  of  fellowship  with 
God  he  surpassed  them  all  (Num.  12:6-8;  Deut.  34: 
10).  Only  Christ  himself  transcended  Moses  as  a 
prophet.  From  the  time  of  Moses  to  Samuel  the  voice 
of  prophecy  was  silent. 

3.  From  Samuel  till  the  prophetic  writers.  Samuel 
gave  a  new  impulse  to  prophecy  which  was  never 
lost    so  long  as  inspiration    continued.     He    may    be 


HEBREW    PROPHECY  181 

called  the  founder  of  the  prophetic  office  as  an  essen- 
tial part  of  the  kingdom  which  took  shape  in  his  day. 
Prophets  like  Nathan  and  Gad  belonged  to  the  court  of 
the  king.  In  this  period  and  even  later  the  prophets 
were  like  the  Nazirites,  separated  unto  the  Lord  (I  Sam. 
1 :  11 ;  3  :  20 ;  Amos  2:11).  Many  of  them  were  united 
with  the  sanctuaries  at  Ramah,  Bethel,  Gibeah,  Gilgal, 
and  Jericho  and,  like  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  were 
probably  of  priestly  families. 

The  so-called  scJiooIs  of  the  prophets  were  associations 
or  brotherhoods  of  pious  men  for  mutual  edification. 
Such  existed  in  the  time  of  Elisha  at  Bethel,  Jericho 
and  Gilgal  (II  Kings  2:3,  5;  4:38).  These  associa- 
tions probably  reduced  prophecy  to  a  profession  with  its 
official  garb  and  its  cant  phrases  (Jer.  23:  33-40;  Zech. 
13:4).  The  hairy  garment  was  worn  in  imitation  of 
Elijah  (II  Kings  1:8)  whose  prophetic  work  in  the 
northern  kingdom  like  that  of  Elisha  was  the  model  of 
all  later  prophets.  His  burning  zeal  for  righteousness 
and  his  fearlessness  are  unsurpassed  in  sacred  history. 
Ecstasy  was  often  a  characteristic  of  prophecy  in  this 
period  and  helped  to  bring  the  office  of  prophet  into 
disrepute  (I  Sam.  10:10;  19:24).  Mechanical  means 
were  used  to  induce  ecstacy.  Thus  far  the  prophets 
were  preachers  but  not  writers. 

4.  The  canonical  writers  protested  against  the  formal- 
ism or  open  idolatry  of  their  day  and  by  committing 
their  words  to  writing,  perpetuated  prophecy  in  its  most 
developed  form.  The  order  of  these  prophets  is  a 
matter  of  criticism  which  will  develop  in  the  chapters 
concerning  them. 


182     OLD    TESTAMENT    INTRODUCTION^ 


The  following  list  is  presented  for  reference: 


1.  Before  the  Exile. 


Joel 

875-865  B.C. 

Jonah 

825-784 

te 

Amos 

795-785 

a 

Hosea 

785-725 

(C 

Isaiah . . . 

758-697 

a 

Micah . . . 

745-700 

(( 

Obadiah. . 

742-726 

i( 

Jeremiah. 

627-586 

iC 

Zephaniah 

626-621 

cc 

Nahum .  . 

623 

a 

Habakknk  608-600 

i< 

2.  During  the  Exile. 
Ezekiel..    592-570 

3.  After  the  Exile. 
Haggai . .    520 
Zechariah  520-475 
Malachi. .   433 


Contemporary  Prophets. 

Amos. 
Jonah. 

Isaiah,  Micah  and  Obadiah. 
Hosea,  Micah  and  Obadiah. 
Hosea,  Isaiah  and  Obadiah. 
Hosea,  Isaiah  and  Micah. 
Zephaniah,  Nahum,  Habak- 
knk and  Ezekiel 
Jeremiah  and  Nahum. 
Jeremiah  and  Zephaniah. 
Jeremiah. 

Jeremiah. 

Zechariah. 
Haggai. 


5.  After  the  close  of  the  Old  Testament  canon, 
prophecy  was  again  silent  until  John  the  Baptist.  He 
was  of  a  similar  spirit  to  Elijah  and  the  greatest  prophet 
of  the  old  dispensation,  standing  on  the  threshold  of 
the  new  (Matt.  11:9;  Luke  1 :  76 ;  7 :  26) .  His  great- 
ness is  however  lost  in  that  of  Him  whose  shoe-latchet 
he  was  not  worthy  to  unloose.  Christ  was  the  prophet 
par  excellence,  in  whom  all  prophecy  finds  its  climax 
and  fulfilment.  He  is  at  once  the  purpose  and  the 
result  of  Hebrew  prophecy. 

IV.     Style.    The  prophetic  office  and  inspiration  did 


HEBEEW    PROPHECY  183 

not  destroy  or  replace  the  individuality  of  the  prophets. 
The  prophets  were  not  automatons  nor  their  inspiration 
mechanical.  Though  altogether  supernatural  their  in- 
spiration had  a  psychological  basis.  Their  dreams  and 
visions  were  sent  from  God  for  a  definite  purpose  but 
follow  the  laws  of  dreams.  God  spoke  in  them  in  a 
manner  superior  to  that  in  which  He  speaks  in  men 
to-day,  yet  not  contrary  to  their  own  psychological 
processes.  The  prophets  were  geniuses  but  mere  genius 
did  not  constitute  prophecy.  Ecstacy  was  characteristic 
of  some  prophets  but  others,  and  those  the  greatest 
(Moses  and  Christ),  were  calm  and  meditative.  Fair- 
bairn  finds  three  marks  of  the  prophetic  style  and 
diction : 

"  1.  Poetical  elevation. 

"  2.  Figurative  representation. 

"  3.  The  exhibition  of  events  as  present,  or  successive 
only  in  relation  to  each  other  rather  than  as  linked  to 
definite  historical  epochs^'  (Fairbairn  on  Prophecy 
p.  13). 

The  literary  style  of  prophecy  is  between  prose  and 
poetry,  sometimes  rising  to  the  exalted  parallelism  of 
Hebrew  poetry  and  then  descending  to  the  dignified 
simplicity  of  Hebrew  prose.  Davidson  has  described  the 
lack  of  perspective  in  prediction  in  this  way :  "  Just  as 
a  traveller  at  a  distance  from  a  mountainous  region, 
sees  one  mountain  rise  up  behind  another,  and  fancies 
it  close  at  the  back  of  the  nearer,  but  when  he  reaches 
the  nearer,  finds  that  the  one  which  seemed  so  close 
behind  it  has  receded,  and  really  stands  far  away;  so 
in  the  prophetic  view,  great  events  crowd  up  close 
behind  one  another,  which  however  in  actual  fulfilment 
are  widely  apart  in  time"  (p.  353). 


184     OLD    TESTAMEiSTT    INTEODUCTION" 

V.  Messianic  Prophecy.  The  Messiah  and  his  King- 
dom are  the  central  subject  of  all  predictive  prophecy, 
the  background  of  every  oracle  concerning  the  future. 
In  regard  to  each  Messianic  prophecy  two  things  are  to 
be  distinguished,  what  the  author  meant  and  what  the 
Spirit  of  Eevelation  meant.  In  proportion  to  the  rela- 
tion of  these  two  elements  we  have  three  kinds  of 
Messianic  predictiono 

1.  Direct  prediction.  Here  the  prophet  clearly  saw 
the  coming  Christ,  The  Spirit  and  the  prophet  have 
the  same  meaning.  Such  are  for  example  Ps.  110  and 
Isa.  7. 

2.  Indirect  or  typical  prediction.  Here  the  prophet 
had  a  primary  reference,  sometimes  realizing  but  little 
of  its  typical  character.  The  Spirit  of  Eevelation 
pointed  beyond  to  the  ideal  fulfilment.  This  is  the 
most  common  form  of  Messianic  prophecy  which  refers 
primarily  to  the  offices  of  prophet,  priest  and  king  and 
to  the  characters  of  Son  of  God,  Servant  of  God  and 
Eighteous  Sufferer. 

3.  Generally  Messianic.  Such  are  the  statements  of 
general  truths,  whose  supreme  application  is  only  to 
Christ,  although  the  author  meant  nothing  more  than 
a  delineation  of  the  ideal.  Examples  of  this  are  found 
in  Psalms  8  and  85. 

All  Messianio  prediction  presents  two  converging 
lines,  the  human  and  the  divine.  "Along  one  of  these 
God  descends  and  displays  Himself  and  comes  near  to 
men,  until  He  becomes  man.  Along  the  other,  man  is 
raised  up  and  enlightened  and  purified  until  he  is 
capable  of  receiving  God"  (Davidson  pp.  12-13). 


I 

ISAIAH 

I.  Name.  The  book  is  named  from  \he  prophet,  its 
author.    The  name  has  the  form  •Ty^''  in  tlie  title  of  the 

T  :  — : 

Hebrew  Bible,  but  the  longer  form  ^i^^W]  in  the  text. 
It  means  "Jehovah  is  salvation.^'  The  Greek  form  is 
"Hffaiag  and  the  Latin  either  Esaias  or  Isaias.  The 
English  name  is  a  transliteration  of  the  shorter  Hebrew 
form. 

II.  Composition. 

1.  Critical  Position.  According  to  the  dominant 
critical  opinion  of  to-day,  the  book  contains  much  which 
was  not  the  work  of  Isaiah  nor  of  his  time.  Chapters  40- 
GQ  are  said  to  have  been  composed  toward  the  close  of 
the  Exile  (about  545-536  B.C.)  by  an  unknown  writer, 
who  is  called  for  convenience  the  Deutero-Isaiah.  In 
contrast,  the  true  prophet  is  sometimes  designated  the 
Proto-Isaiah.  Chapters  36-39  are  considered  a  his- 
torical appendix,  written  a  few  years  after  the  death  of 
Isaiah.  Chapters  13  : 1  to  14 :  23 ;  21 : 1-10 ;  24  to  27 ; 
and  34-35  are  also  assigned  to  an  exilic  date.  Some  of 
the  more  radical  critics  deny  the  genuineness  of  Isa. 
2:2-4;  11:10  through  chap.  12;  14:24-27;  17:12-14; 
19:  16-25;  23;  and  32-33.  They  assign  late  post-exilic 
dates  to  many  of  these  sections  and  assert  that  the  first 
book  of  Isaiah  received  its  present  form  by  redactional 
activity  later  still,  the  redactor  transposing  the  writings 
of  the  real  Isaiah  from  the  true  chronological  order  and 
inserting  these  other  fragments. 

185 


186     OLD    TESTAMENT    INTRODUCTION" 

The  literary  unity  of  chapters  40-66  is  denied  by 
many,  Dillmann  assigned  chapters  40-48  to  the  time 
of  Cyrus'  successes  (545  B.C.)  49-62  to  B.C.  545-539 
and  63-66  to  the  period  just  before  the  decree  of  Cyrus 
permitting  the  return  of  the  exiles  (536  B.C.).  Duhm 
and  Cheyne  are  much  more  radical.  The  former  con- 
fines the  work  of  the  Deutero-Isaiah  to  chaps.  40-55 
although  these  chapters  are  said  to  contain  many  later 
insertions.  The  most  important  are  the  "  servant " 
passages  (42:1-4;  49:1-6;  50:4-9;  52:13  to  53:12) 
which  he  refers  to  B.C.  500-450.  Chapters  56-66  Duhm 
refers  to  a  writer  approaching  the  time  of  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah,  whom  he  calls  the  Trito-Isaiah.  Cheyne 
agrees  with  Duhm  in  the  main,  though  he  assigns  the 
"servant"'  passages  to  the  Second  Isaiah  and  con- 
siders chaps.  56-66  to  have  been  the  work  of  a  school 
of  writers  rather  than  an  individual. 

2.  Critical  Arguments.  The  same  general  argu- 
ments which  are  used  to  prove  chaps.  40-66  non-Isaianic 
are  applied  to  the  other  disputed  sections.  These  argu- 
ments are  three. 

a.  The  theme  of  Chapters  40-66  is  the  Exile  and  the 
return.  It  is  not  predicted  but  presupposed.  The 
people  whom  the  prophet  addresses  are  the  exiles.  The 
critics  assert  that  though  there  are  cases  of  prophets 
projecting  themselves  into  the  future,  no  other  in- 
stance of  such  prolonged  maintaining  of  an  ideal  future 
standpoint  is  known,  as  this  would  be  if  Isaiah  wrote  it 
150  years  before  the  Exile.  The  mention  of  Cyrus  by 
name  so  long  before  his  time  (Isa.  44:28;  45:1)  is 
also  said  to  be  contrary  to  the  usual  method  of  prophecy. 

h.  The  literary  style  of  these  chapters  differs  greatly 
from  that  of  the  earlier  portion  of  the  book.     Several 


ISAIAH  187 

words  and  expressions,  frequent  in  these  chapters  are 
never  or  rarely  found  in  the  remainder  of  the  book. 
Cheyne  cites  other  expressions  which  indicate  a  date 
later  than  Isaiah.  The  grandeur  of  style,  characteristic 
of  Isaiah,  is  here  replaced  by  pathos.  Personification 
is  a  common  figure  with  the  writer  of  chapters  40-66. 

c.  The  theological  ideas  are  said  to  be  different  from 
those  of  Isaiah.  The  writer  emphasizes  the  infinitude 
of  God.  The  Isaianic  doctrine  of  the  preservation  of 
the  faithful  remnant  is  wanting  in  the  second  Isaiah, 
as  well  as  the  figure  of  the  Messianic  king.  The  rela- 
tion of  Jehovah  to  the  nations  is  much  more  fully 
developed  than  by  Isaiah. 

3.  Answer  to  Critical  arguments. 

a.  It  is  admitted  that  the  standpoint  of  the  writer  of 
chapters  40-66  is  the  Exile  but  it  is  insisted  that  this  is 
an  ideal  and  not  a  real  standpoint.  Isaiah  projects 
himself  into  the  time  of  the  Exile  by  the  Spirit  of  Eeve- 
lation.  If  evangelical  critics  admit  that  there  are  other 
instances  in  the  prophets  of  such  projection  into  the 
future  (Driver  p.  237),  it  is  difficult  to  understand 
why  so  great  a  prophet  as  Isaiah  might  not  have  main- 
tained this  ideal  standpoint  throughout  so  long  a 
section. 

h.  The  maintenance  of  this  position  in  the  Exile  was 
made  easier  by  the  fact  that  the  Exile  was  not  an  event 
still  future  to  Isaiah  but  a  process  which  had  begun 
before  his  time  and  whose  culmination  was  a  common- 
place of  the  prophets.  It  was  needless  for  Isaiah  to 
repeat  this  prediction  in  chapters  40-66,  for  he  had  al- 
ready foretold  the  Exile  (Isa.  5:5-6;  10:30-24;  32; 
13-18)  and  all  the  people  of  Isaiah's  time  were  familiar 
with  the  idea.     Furthermore  this  process  of  the  Exile 


188      OLD    TESTAMENT    INTEODUCTION' 

had  two  notal)le  confirmations  in  Isaiah's  time,  the 
destruction  of  the  northern  kingdom  and  the  invasion 
of  the  southern  kingdom  by  Sennacherib.  Isaiah's 
prophecy  of  return  refers  not  merely  to  the  two  southern 
tribes  who  still  held  out  against  the  enemy,  but  also  to 
the  ten  northern  tribes  who  were  already  in  exile.  AYhen 
Isaiah  had  seen  Samaria  captured  and  her  people  de- 
ported, Jerusalem  besieged  and  her  king  "  shut  up  like 
a  bird  in  a  cage,"  and  Sennacherib's  hosts  driven  back 
only  by  divine  intervention  and  when  in  his  old  age  he 
saw  the  profligacy  and  idolatry  of  the  reign  of 
Manasseh,  which  must  inevitably  hasten  the  coming 
doom,  what  wonder  that  he  considered  the  Exile  already 
begun  and  devoted  his  closing  years  to  a  description  of 
the  glorious  future  which  awaited  the  people  after  the 
return.  As  was  usual  with  the  prophets,  he  did  not 
realize  that  a  century  and  a  half  would  intervene.  The 
reforms  of  Josiah  which  delayed  the  Exile  were  not 
present  to  his  sight.  These  words  of  consolation  which 
were  appropriate  for  the  believers  in  the  beginning  of 
Manasseh's  reign,  because  they  saw  the  Exile  at  hand, 
would  be  appropriate  to  those  actually  in  exile. 

c.  It  is  also  admitted  that  names  and  dates  are  not 
usual  in  prophecy.  Yet  the  mention  of  Cyrus  by  name 
150  years  in  advance  is  not  without  precedent.  Josiah 
was  foretold  by  name  in  the  reign  of  Jeroboam  (I  Kings 
13:1-2),  over  three  hundred  years  before  his  time. 
Bethlehem  is  mentioned  by  name  as  the  birth-place  of 
the  Messiah  by  Isaiah's  contemporary  Micah  (5:2)  and 
that  so  clearly  that  Christ  was  expected  to  be  born  there 
(Matt.  2:4-6)  and  some  objected  to  Jesus  because  he 
came  from  Galilee  (Jno.  7:40-44).  Other  exact 
prophecies  are  the  70  years  of  exile  by  Jeremiah  (Jer. 


ISAIAH  189 

25:11-12;  29:10;  Dan.  9:2),  Daniel's  mention  of 
Christ  (Dan.  9:24-26),  Zechariali's  of  the  piercing  of 
the  Shepherd  (12: 10)  and  of  his  being  sold  for  thirty 
pieces  of  silver  (11:  13)  and  EzekieFs  and  Zechariah's 
against  Tjre  (Ezek.  26-27;  Zech.  9  : 1-8). 

These  passages  are  sufficient  to  show  that  in  unusual 
cases  and  as  a  special  proof  of  divine  revelation,  the 
prophets  sometimes  mention  names  and  dates  in  the 
future.  Such  unusual  conditions  obtained  when  Isaiah 
wrote  these  closing  chapters.  AVith  the  Exile  impending, 
the  faithful  needed  some  special  proof  for  the  prophet's 
assurance  of  return.  This  he  gave  them  in  the  man 
Cyrus  whose  rising,  those  then  living  might  witness,  for 
all  Isaiah  knew.  At  any  rate  expectation  of  Cyrus 
would  be  the  comfort  of  intervening  years,  and  when 
he  should  actually  arise,  Israel  would  know  that  their 
redemption  drew  nigh. 

d.  The  differences  of  style  between  chapters  40-66  and 
the  earlier  parts  of  the  book  are  not  sufficient  to  indicate 
a  difference  in  authorship.  Isaiah  prophesied  during 
forty  years  or  more.  A  considerable  lapse  of  time  may 
partially  account  for  his  changed  stjde.  It  is  more  fully 
explained  however  by  the  change  of  subject  in  chapters 
40-66  and  especially  by  the  ideal  standpoint  from  which 
they  are  written.  The  grandeur  of  the  earlier  chapters 
gives  place  to  pathos  because  the  aged  prophet  seeks  to 
console  those  who  foresee  the  destruction  of  their  land. 

The  literary  argument  is  of  little  value,  by  itself. 
Whence  do  we  know  the  style  of  Isaiah  if  not  from  the 
book  which  bears  his  name?  To  derive  our  knowledge 
of  his  style  from  a  part  of  that  book  on  the  presumption 
that  he  wrote  it  and  then  to  deny  his  authorship  for  the 
remainder  of  the  book,  is  reasoning  in  a  circle. 


190     OLD    TESTAMEXT    INTEODUCTION 

e.  On  the  other  hand  the  critics  are  compelled  to 
admit  that  the  second  Isaiah  exhibits  many  signs  of 
similarity  to  the  first.  To  account  for  this  some  have 
conjectured  that  he  was  a  disciple  of  Isaiah,  others  that 
he  was  filled  with  the  spirit  of  Isaiah  or  wrote  in  con- 
scious imitation  of  that  prophet.  It  was  this  similarity 
to  Isaiah,  the  critics  tell  us,  which  caused  the  editor 
to  add  these  chapters  to  the  true  work  of  Isaiah.  If  the 
similarity  is  so  great,  the  differences  are  not  sufiicient 
to  require  another  author.  Instead  of  emphasizing  the 
differences  and  then  attempting  to  explain  the  resem- 
blances, it  is  simpler  and  more  logical  to  emphasize  the 
resemblances  and  explain  the  differences.  These  glorious 
chapters  were  not  written  in  the  Exile  in  the  spirit  of 
Isaiah,  but  by  Isaiah  in  the  spirit  of  the  Exile.  Their 
similarity  to  Isaiah's  acknowledged  work  is  evidence 
that  he  wrote  them.  The  differences  are  because 
he  wrote  on  another  subject  and  from  another  view- 
point. 

The  resemblances  are  of  two  kinds: 

(1)  Verbal  agreement. 

[■ compare 1:20 


40:5 
58:14 

43:13    "      14:27 

45:11)  ,,  fl9:25 

60:21  J 1  29:23 

51:11   ''      35:10 

56:8     "      11:12 

61 
63 
65:25   "      11:9 


■■\] 


"      34:8 


ISAIxVH  191 

(2)   Similar  thought  or  figure. 

.  3.4.   1 

y compare 35 :  8-10 

"      35:6-7 


:2:1    1 
;i:l    J 


I 


40 

49 

41:17-18 

43:19 

42 

61 

42 :  7     "      9:2 

42:13    "      31:4 

"      6:9 


"1 


45:15 
57:17 

47:3   , 

47:10 

49:2 

49:26 

51:4 

51:9 

53:1 

53:2 

54 :  7-8 

55:12 


11:2 


42 :  18-21 
43:8 

43:13    "      14:27 

43:24   "       1:14 

43:26   "      1:14-19 

^^•^    1 "      29:16 

64:9 


8:17 


192     OLD    TESTAMENT    INTRODUCTION 

56  :  7   compare 2:2 

56:12   


59:3 

59:11 

60:13 

60:18 

60:21 

61:8 

62:10 

63:17 

65:3 

66:17 

65:19 

65:25 

66:16 


22:13 

1:15 

38:14 

35:2 

26:1 

11:1 

1:11,13 

11:12 

6:10 

1:29 

35:10 

11:6 

27:1 

/.  The  differences  in  theological  ideas  are  to  be  ac- 
counted for  in  the  same  way  as  the  differences  in  style. 
It  is  not  claimed  that  the  theological  ideas  are  contra- 
dictory to  those  of  Isaiah  but  that  they  are  broader  and 
more  elevated.  This  breadth  and  elevation  are  due  to 
the  lofty  subject  of  which  he  was  speaking.  Like  John 
on  Patmos,  he  saw  things  yet  to  come  and  so  widespread 
was  his  vision  of  the  future  that  his  theological  ideas 
were  broadened.  Therefore  he  spoke  of  the  infinitude 
of  God.  The  very  same  Messiah  who  had  appeared 
before  to  him  as  a  King  of  David's  time,  now  appears 
as  the  "  Servant  of  Jehovah  "  and  the  Eighteous  Suf- 
ferer. Yet  the  reference  to  David  (55:3)  shows  that 
the  former  conception  is  not  entirely  forgotten.  Tlie 
absence  of  the  idea  of  the  preservation  of  the  faithful 
remnant  and  the  broader  conception  of  the  relation  of 
Jehovah  to  the  nations  are  due  to  the  ideal  standpoint 


ISAIAH 


193 


of  these  chapters.  Indeed  the  theological  ideas  of  the 
second  Isaiah  are  not  different  from  those  of  his  con- 
temporary, Micah.  The  same  glorious  prophecy  of  the 
future,  the  same  broad  conception  of  the  nations,  and 
the  confident  expectation  of  return  from  the  Exile  are 
characteristic  of  them  both. 

g.  Literary  resemblance  with  Micah. 


Mi 


cah  1:11 compare Isa.  47 :  2-3 


2:13 

3:5 

3:8   , 

3:11, 

4:13, 

7:17, 


52:12 
56:10-11 

58:1 
48:2 
41:15-16 
49:23 


4.  Critical  Arguments  concerning  Isa.  36-39. 
Strack  presents  two  arguments  against  the  Isaianic 
authorship  of  chapters  36-39. 

a.  Sennacherib's  death  is  mentioned  (Isa.  37:37-38) 
an  event  which   is  dated   682   B.C.   and   after 
Isaiah's  time. 
&.  These  chapters  agree  almost  word  for  word  with 
II  Kings  18:13,  17  to  20:19  and  were  taken 
from  it. 
Answer. — a.  It  is  possible  that  the  mention  of  Sen- 
nacherib's death  was  a  later  addition  from  the  book  of 
Kings.     If  however  we   suppose   that   Isaiah   was   20 
years  old  "  in  the  year  that  King  Uzziah  died  "  (accord- 
ing to  the  critics  737  B.C.)  when  his  ministry  began, 
we  have  only  to  imagine  him  living  to  be  eighty  in  order 
to   record    Sennacherib's    death.     The   likelihood    that 
Isaiah  lived  so  long  is  strengthened  by  the  tradition 


194     OLD    TESTAMENT    IXTEODUCTIOX 

that  he  suffered  death  by  martyrdom  in  the  reign  of 
Manasseh,  who  came  to  the  throne  according  to  Strack's 
estimate,  in  686  B.C.  onl}^  four  years  before  the  death 
of  Sennacherib.  Such  a  supposition  would  also  account 
for  the  tone  of  chapters  40-66.  They  reflect  a  time  of 
idolatry  such  as  existed  in  Judah  in  the  reign  of 
Manasseh. 

h.  The  resemblance  of  Isa.  36-39  to  II  Kings  18 :  13, 
17  to  20 :  19,  whatever  its  explanation,  need  not  militate 
against  the  Isaianic  authorship.  The  Books  of  Kings 
rest  upon  older  records  of  the  individual  reigns,  there- 
fore the  book  was  not  necessarily  complete  when  the 
passages  in  Isaiah  were  taken  from  it.  Isaiah  may  have 
taken  Isa.  36-39  in  the  main  from  the  regal  annals  of 
his  time,  which  later  constituted  a  part  of  the  Books  of 
Kings.  On  the  other  hand,  the  brevity  of  the  account 
of  Hezekiah's  sickness  in  Isa.  38 :  1-8  as  compared  with 
that  of  II  Kings  20 :  1-11  seems  to  indicate  that  Isaiah's 
record  is  the  original.  Isaiah  does  not  mention  the 
lump  of  figs  with  which  Hezekiah  was  healed  and  only 
casually  alludes  to  the  two  choices  of  Hezekiah  but 
gives  Hezekiah's  Psalm  (Isa.  38:10-20)  which  is  not 
found  in  Kings.  Thus  Isaiah  was  either  the  author  of 
chapters  36-39  or  incorporated  them  in  his  book. 

5.  Other  Evidences  of  Unity. 

a.  The  last  twenty-seven  chapters  of  Isaiah  are  ad- 
mitted to  be  the  most  exalted  and  remarkable  literary 
production  of  any  prophet  of  Israel.  It  is  exceedingly 
improbable  that  the  name  of  this  incomparable  prophet 
should  be  entirely  forgotten,  that  his  work  should  be- 
come a  mere  appendix  to  that  of  an  inferior  prophet, 
and  that  for  twenty  centuries  his  work  should  be  uni- 
versally regarded  among  the  Jews  as  that  of  the  inferior 


ISAIAH  195 

prophet.  It  is  even  more  improbable  that  sections  of 
a  later  time  should  be  intermingled  with  the  writings 
of  Isaiah  b}^  a  bungling  editor,  so  that  it  has  become  very 
difficult  to  extricate  the  true  work  of  that  prophet  and 
arrange  it  in  chronological  order.  It  is  incredible  that 
the  Jews  with  their  superstitious  adoration  for  their 
sacred  records  would  have  allowed  them  to  be  confused 
and  mutilated  in  this  manner. 

h.  The  inspired  Xew  Testament  saints  and  writers 
quote  these  chapters  as  the  work  of  Isaiah — John  the 
Baptist  (Matt.  3:3;  Luke  3:4;  Jno.  1 :  23) ;  Matthew 
(Matt.  8  :  1 ;  12  :  18-21)  ;  John  (Jno.  12  :  38)  and  Paul 
(Eom.  10:16,  20-21).  Though  our  Lord  nowhere 
quotes  the  Deutero-Isaiah  as  the  writing  of  Isaiah,  yet 
he  tacitly  assumed  its  genuineness  when,  without  cor- 
recting the  popular  misapprehension,  he  read  from  it  in 
the  synagogue  at  Xazareth  (Luke  4:  16-19). 

c.  The  writer  of  chapters  40-66  does  not  show  the 
familiarity  with  the  land  or  religion  of  Babylon  which 
we  would  expect  from  a  man  living  among  the  captives. 
In  this  respect  his  work  differs  radically  from  that  of 
Ezekiel,  the  true  prophet  of  the  Exile,  and  even  from 
Jeremiah  who  w^itnessed  the  beginning  of  the  Exile. 
This  ignorance  of  detail  shows  that  the  prophet's  stand- 
point among  the  captives  is  ideal  rather  than  real. 

d.  There  are  many  passages  in  the  Deutero-Isaiah 
which  do  not  fit  the  time  of  the  Exile  but  do  fit  Isaiah's 
time.  Such  are  Isa.  40  :  2,  9 ;  43 :  6 ;  44 :  9-20 ;  48  : 1,  5 ; 
49  :  25 ;  51 :  7 ;  56  :  3  etc. ;  57 :  13-21 ;  58 : 1,  6-7 ;  59  : 1-8 ; 
60:4,  6-7;  65:2-7. 

III.  Author.  The  author  of  the  entire  book  was 
Isaiah,  the  son  of  Amoz,  who  lived  and  ^vTought  in 
Jerusalem.    He  was  ordained  a  prophet  in  the  year  that 


196     OLD    TESTAMENT    INTEODUCTION 

King  Uzziah  died  (B.C.  758)  and  continued  his  min- 
istry in  the  reigns  of  Jotham,  Ahaz,  and  Hezekiah. 
Hosea  and  Micah  were  his  contemporary  prophets. 
The  date  of  Isaiah's  death  is  not  certainly  known.  There 
was  however  a  Jewish  tradition  in  the  second  century 
A.D.  that  he  suffered  martyrdom  by  being  sawn  asunder 
in  the  persecutions  after  the  accession  of  Manasseh.  If 
so  his  ministry  extended  over  about  60  3'ears.  He  seems 
to  have  been  specially  influential  with  Hezekiah.  In 
II  Chron.  26:  22  Isaiah  is  said  to  have  written  a  vision 
of  Uzziah's  reign  and  in  II  Chron.  32 :  32  he  is  said  to 
have  had  a  "  Vision "  which  contained  a  history  of 
Hezekiah  and  which  is  found  in  ^^  the  book  of  the 
Kings  of  Judah  and  Israel."  AYe  do  not  however  pos- 
sess this  book,  at  least  in  the  form  including  Isaiah's 
"  Vision." 

Concerning  his  private  life  we  know  that  Isaiah  was 
married  (Isa.  8:3)  and  that  he  had  two  sons  to  whom 
symbolic  names  were  given.  The  first  was  called  Shear- 
jashub  (7:3)  meaning  "a  remnant  shall  return" 
and  the  second  Maher-shalal-hash-baz  meaning  "  spoil 
quickly,  plunder  s\\dftly." 

IV.  Theme.  Isaiah's  work  had  to  do  chiefly  with 
Judah  and  Jerusalem  at  a  very  critical  period  of  their 
history.  The  rising  power  of  Assyria  and  the  waning 
power  of  Egypt  caused  the  presence  in  Judah  of  two 
political  parties,  the  one  favoring  a  defensive  alliance 
with  Assyria  and  the  other  with  Egypt.  The  prophet 
stood  between  these  two,  forbade  all  human  alliances 
and  urged  the  people  to  trust  in  Jehovah  of  Hosts. 
Isaiah  had  a  very  lofty  conception  of  God.  He  speaks 
more  than  any  other  Old  Testament  writer  of  the  holi- 
ness of  God,  and  emphasizes  His  infinitude  and  spirit- 


ISAIAH  197 

uality.  The  prophet  had  a  broad  view  of  the  relation  of 
God  to  man.  He  gave  prophecies  concerning  Syria, 
Moab,  Egypt,  Tyre,  Assyria  and  Babylon  not  only  be- 
cause of  their  relation  to  Judah  but  as  the  creatures  of 
God.  He  recognized  the  universality  of  Jehovah's 
dominion.  Like  the  other  prophets,  he  demanded 
spirituality  in  worship,  not  the  mere  performance  of 
sacrifices  and  vows  but  the  heart's  devotion  to  God. 
His  conception  of  the  glorious  future  is  brighter  and 
more  varied  than  that  of  any  other  prophet  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  Messianic  ideas  of  Isaiah  transcend 
those  of  the  other  Old  Testament  writers.  A  large  part 
of  his  prophecies  probably  group  themselves  about  the 
two  great  crises  of  Judah  in  his  time,  the  first, 
when  Israel  and  Sjrria  made  a  confederacy  against 
Judah  in  the  days  of  Ahaz  and  the  second,  when 
Judah  was  invaded  by  Sennacherib  in  the  reign  of 
Hezekiah. 

V.     Divisions. 

Introduction.     Chapter  1. 

1.  Prophecies  from  Isaiah's  Eeal  Standpoint.  Chaps. 
2-35. 

a.  Prophecy  against  Judah  and  Jerusalem.  Chap- 
ters 2-5. 

h.  The  Book  of  Immanuel,  opening  with  an  account 
of  Isaiah's  ordination.     Chapters  6-12. 

c.  Ten    judgments    upon    the    nations.     Chapters 

13-24. 

d.  Praise  to  Jehovah.    His  promises  and  warnings 

for  Judah.     Chapters  25-35. 

2.  Historical  section  concerning  the  invasion  of  Sen- 
nacherib, which  is  supplementary  to  the  first  part  of  the 
book  and  introductory  to  the  last  part.    Chapters  36-39. 


198     OLD    TESTAMEXT    IXTRODUCTIOX 

3.  Prophecies  from  the  Ideal  Standpoint  of  the  Exile. 
Chapters  40-66. 

a.  Jehovah  the  Saviour  of  Israel.     Chapters  40-48. 
h.  Jehovah  the  Saviour  of  the  Gentiles.     Chapters 

49-57. 
c.  The  Glorious  Future  of  God's  people.    Chapters 
58-66. 


II 

JEREMIAH 

I.  Name.  The  name  of  the  book  is  that  of  the 
prophet.  It  has  two  forms  ^<Tp"}^  and  n;p-i\  Its  prob- 
able meaning  is  "whom  Jehovah  appoints  or  estab- 
lishes." The  Greek  form  is  'leps/Mu?^  and  the  Latin 
Jeremias.  The  English  name  comes  from  the  shorter 
Hebrew  form. 

II.  Composition. 

1.  Evidence  from  the  Booh.  Jeremiah  dictated  to 
Baruch,  his  scribe,  all  his  prophecies  from  the  begin- 
ning of  his  ministry  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim 
(Jer.  36:1-4).  This  would  cover  23  of  the  41  years 
of  Jeremiah's  ministry.  In  the  following  year  this 
roll  was  cut  and  throwTi  into  the  fire  by  the  king, 
after  he  heard  it  read.  (Jer.  36:23.)  Accordingly 
the  prophet  prepared  a  new  roll  by  the  hand  of  Baruch 
adding  to  the  contents  of  the  former  one  "  many  like 
words"  (Jer.  36:  32).  This  restored  roll  did  not  con- 
tain a  large  part  of  the  present  book,  for  many  sections 
are  dated  at  a  later  time  (Jer.  21:1;  24 :  1 ;  27:3,  12 ; 
28:1;  29:1;  34:1-2;  37:1;  38:5,  14  etc.;  39:' 1-2; 
40-44;  49:34;  52)  and  others  bear  marks  of  a  later 
composition.  When  the  prophecies  were  arranged  in 
their  present  form,  it  is  impossible  to  determine,  though 
there  is  nothing  in  the  book  requiring  a  date  long  after 
the  death  of  the  prophet.  Chapter  52  was  probably 
not  the  work  of  Jeremiah    (Jer.   51:64).     It  agrees 

199 


200     OLD    TESTAMENT    IXTEODUCTIOX 

almost  word  for  word  with  II  Kings  24:  18  to  25:  30 
and  is  thought  by  many  to  have  been  added  to  Jeremiah 
from  that  source. 

2.  Critical  Opinion.  Modern  critics  from  internal 
evidence  deny  that  Jeremiah  wrote  the  following  sec- 
tions: Jer.  10:1-16;  16:Uf;  17:26;  25:13;  27:1; 
30:23f;  32:17-23;  39:1-2,  4-10;  40:1-6  and  50 :  1  to 
51 :  58.  Davidson  distinguishes  three  stages  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  book  (H.  B.  D.  Vol.  11  p.  575). 

a.  Jeremiah's  second  roll  which  he  makes  to  include 
chapters  1-6,  7-10  (except  10:1-16)  11:1  to  12:6; 
14-15 ;  16:1  to  17 :  18 ;  25  in  its  original  form  and 
possibly  18;  20:  7f ;  22  :  lOf ;  45  and  parts  of  46-49. 

h.  Soon  after  the  prophet's  death  some  persons  either 
in  Babylon  or  Palestine  collected  all  they  could  of  the 
work  of  Jeremiah,  making  his  biography  as  complete 
as  possible.  They  added  the  headings  of  the  prophecies. 
Kuenen  suggests  the  latter  half  of  the  Exile  as  the  date 
of  this  redaction  which  gave  the  book  the  form  which 
is  the  basis  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  texts. 

c.  Certain  modifications  and  additions  were  made 
after  the  Exile.  Some  of  these  were  admitted  to  all 
manuscripts,  while  others  were  excluded  from  those 
manuscripts  which  underlie  the  Septuagint. 

All  this  is  admitted  to  be  largely  conjectural.  In 
the  absence  of  fuller  information,  we  cannot  do  better 
than  express  the  probability  that  the  book  received  its 
present  form  at  the  hands  of  an  editor  soon  after  Jere- 
miah's death  and  that  the  whole,  with  the  exception 
of  chapter  52  and  possibly  certain  brief  insertions,  was 
the  work  of  that  prophet. 

3.  The  Text.  The  text  of  the  Septuagint  differs 
more  widely  from  the  Hebrew  in  Jeremiah  than  in 


JEEEMIAH  201 

any  other  book  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  prophe- 
cies concerning  foreign  nations  (Chaps.  46-51)  are 
inserted  after  25 :  13  and  arranged  differently,  and 
33 :  14-26  are  dropped.  In  many  passages  the  Greek 
text  is  shorter  than  the  Hebrew  making  the  entire  book 
about  one-eighth  smaller.  Several  different  theories 
have  been  advanced  to  account  for  these  variations. 
Whatever  be  the  true  explanation,  there  is  no  warrant 
for  considering  the  Greek  form  of  the  book  more  trust- 
worthy than  the  Hebrew  in  view  of  the  carelessness  of 
the  Septuagint  translators  and  the  careless  transmis- 
sion of  its  text. 

III.     Author. 

Jeremiah  was  the  son  of  Hilkiah,  a  priest  who  lived 
at  Anathoth  in  Benjamin  (Jer.  1:1).  He  was  ordained 
a  prophet  in  his  youth  (1:4-10).  His  first  prophecy 
was  given  in  the  thirteenth  year  of  Josiah's  reign 
(627  B.C.).  He  continued  to  prophesy  during  the 
reigns  of  Josiah,  Jehoahaz,  Jehoiakim  and  Jehoiachin 
until  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  the  eleventh  year 
of  Zedekiah  (586  B.C)— in  all  41  years.  His  life  was 
threatened  by  the  men  of  Anathoth  and  later  the  hos- 
tility to  him  became  general.  Yet  he  continued  fear- 
lessly to  utter  the  divine  judgments.  He  was  put  in 
the  stocks  (Jer.  20: 1-3).  During  the  siege  of  Jerusa- 
lem he  was  cast  into  prison  because  his  prophecies  of 
the  fall  of  the  city  were  considered  friendly  to  the 
Chaldeans  (Jer.  27:1-15).  Zedekiah  released  him 
for  a  time  but  he  was  again  in  prison  by  command  of 
the  princes  when  the  city  fell  (Jer.  38).  Nebuzaradan, 
the  Chaldean  general,  released  him  at  the  command  of 
Nebuchadnezzar.  When  Gedaliah,  the  governor  of 
Judah,  was  murdered,  Jeremiah  tried  to  dissuade  the 


203     OLD    TESTAMEXT    IXTRODUCTIOX 

Jews  from  going  to  Eg}^t.  Xevertheless  they  went 
and  took  him  with  them.  He  prophesied  concerning 
them  at  Tahpanhes  in  Egypt  (Jer.  43:8  to  44:30). 
The  date  of  his  death  is  unknown. 

IV.    Theme. 

The  book  of  Jeremiah  reflects  his  times  and  character. 
They  were  times  of  misfortune  and  increasing  apostasy 
in  Israel,  while  the  prophet^s  character  was  deeply 
sensitive  and  emotional.  Three  important  events 
occurred  during  his  ministry,  the  first  battle  of  Car- 
chemish,  in  which  Josiah,  the  last  great  and  good  king 
of  Judah,  was  slain  by  the  Egyptians,  the  second 
battle  of  Carchemish,  in  which  the  Babvlonians  wrested 
from  Eg}7)t  the  dominion  of  western  Asia  and  thus 
became  the  lords  of  Judah,  and  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem and  deportation  of  the  people  to  Babylon.  Jere- 
miah stood  almost  alone  in  the  effort  to  stem  the  tide 
of  apostasy  which  he  foresaw  would  engulf  the  people 
of  God.  His  work  was  characterized  by  an  intense 
love  of  Judah  and  an  absolute  fearlessness  in  his  deter- 
mination to  deliver  God's  warning  message.  The 
unpopularity  and  persecution  with  which  his  faithful- 
ness was  received,  saddened  his  sensitive  nature  and 
at  times  even  embittered  him.  The  prevailing  tone 
of  sorrow  and  judgment  which  pervades  his  writings 
is  but  the  natural  feeling  of  a  pious  soul  in  such  a 
time. 

Yet  the  book  is  not  utterly  hopeless.  Though  Jere- 
miah does  not  rise  to  the  prophetic  heights  of  Isaiah, 
there  are  many  signs  of  his  faith  in  the  return  of  Israel 
and  the  ultimate  triumph  of  God's  purposes.  This  was 
grounded  in  his  intense  belief  in  the  everlasting  love 
of   God   for   His   own.     Bevond   the   chastisement   of 


JEREMIAH  203 

the  Exile  he  saw  clearly  the  coming  of  the  Branch  of 
Righteousness  and  the  establishment  of  a  New  Cove- 
nant. In  this  last  prediction  ( Jer.  31 :  31-3-1)  he  dis- 
plays a  spiritual  insight  into  God's  plan  of  the  ages, 
which  is  unequalled  by  any  other  prophet  of  the  old 
dispensation. 
V.     Divisions. 

1.  Prophecies  concerning  Judah  to  the  fall  of  Jeru- 
salem.    Chapters  1-38. 

This  includes  warning,  lamentation,  historical  pas- 
sages, and  symbolic  actions. 

2.  History  and  prophecy  concerning  the  people  after 
the  fall  of  Jerusalem.     Chapters  39-45. 

3.  Prophecies    concerning    the    Gentiles.     Chapters 
46-51. 

4.  Supplementary  account  of  the  deportation  of  the 
people,  not  by  Jeremiah.     Chapter  52. 


Ill 

EZEKIEL 

I.  Name.  The  book  is  named  from  its  author  ('Npin^ 
meaning  "  God  strengtheneth  ^'  or  "  God  is  strong." 
The  Septuagint  form  of  the  name  is  "hXexi'rjX  and  the 
Yulgate  Ezechiel.  Luther  gave  the  form  Hesekiel. 
The  English  follows  the  Vulgate. 

II.  Composition.  The  genuineness  and  unit}^  of  the 
book  of  Ezekiel  have  never  been  seriously  questioned. 
All  schools  of  criticism  are  agreed  that  we  have  the 
book  substantially  as  it  came  from  the  prophet's  hand. 
Even  Cornill  says :  "  If  there  is  any  book  of  the  Old 
Testament  which  bears  the  mark  of  authenticity  on 
its  face  and  lies  before  us  in  the  form  in  which  it  came 
from  the  hand  of  its  author,  it  is  the  book  of  Ezekiel " 
(Einleitung  p.  176).  This  uniform  opinion  is  based 
upon  the  marked  characteristics  of  the  book  throughout 
and  the  evident  arrangement  and  plan. 

The  critics  affirm  that  the  text  of  the  book  is  very 
corrupt.  Baudissin  suggests  that  in  some  places  the 
Massoretic  Text  might  be  improved  in  conformity  with 
that  of  the  Septuagint,  although  he  does  not  think 
the  Alexandrian  text  better  throughout.  The  greater 
uncertainty  concerning  the  text  of  the  Septuagint, 
however,  makes  it  a  poor  guide  for  the  rectification  of 
the  Hebrew. 

III.  Author.  Ezekiel  was  the  son  of  Buzi  and  of 
a  priestly  family  (Ezek.  1:3).  In  his  young  manhood 
he  was  carried  captive  from  Judali  with  Jehoiachin 

204 


EZEKIEL  205 

(597  B.C.  11  Kings  24:11-16;  Ezek.  33:21;  40:1) 
eleven  years  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  He 
lived  with  a  colony  of  captives  at  Tel-Abib  on  the  river 
Chebar  in  Babylonia.  His  call  and  ordination  to  the 
prophetic  office  took  place  five  years  after  he  went  into 
exile  (592  B.C.).  He  was  married  (24: 18)  and  lived 
in  his  own  house  where  the  elders  of  the  people  came 
to  him  for  counsel  (8:1;  14:  1;  20:  1).  His  prophe- 
cies seem  to  have  been  received  coldly  (33:30-33) 
though  there  is  not  sufficient  evidence  that  he  was  per- 
secuted. His  last  dated  prophecy  was  in  the  27th  year 
of  his  captivity  (29:17  B.C.  570).  Hence  Ezekiel's 
ministry  covered  at  least  22  j^ears,  B.C.  592-570.  There 
is  a  late  and  unreliable  tradition  that  he  was  slain  by 
a  prince  for  denouncing  idolatry. 

Ezekiel  was  probably  25  years  old  when  he  was 
carried  captive  ( 1 :  1-2 ) .  Before  this  time  he  was 
doubtless  familiar  with  the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah, 
who  had  already  prophesied  30  years  in  Jerusalem.  His 
work  in  Babylonia  was  contemporaneous  with  the  latter 
part  of  Jeremiah's  ministry  in  Jerusalem  till  the  final 
destruction  of  that  city  (586  B.C.).  Ezekiel  continued 
to  prophesy  after  that  time  in  Babylonia  while  Jere- 
miah was  in  Egypt. 

IV.  Theme.  The  great  prophet  of  the  Exile  differed 
from  the  other  major  prophets,  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah,  in 
two  important  respects. 

a.  His  work  did  not  have  to  do  with  the  government 
of  Judah.  He  was  in  no  sense  a  political  or  social 
reformer.  Among  those  who  had  been  carried  far  from 
their  native  laud,  his  work  was  rather  that  of  comfort 
and  exhortation  for  the  individual.  He  was  also  far 
removed  from  the  court  of  Babylon. 


206     OLD    TESTAMENT    IXTRODUCTIOX 

h.  For  the  same  reason  lie  was  more  a  writer  than  a 
speaker.  In  this  respect  he  is  unique  among  the  prophets. 
His  words  were  to  "  all  the  house  of  Israel."  Hence 
they  were  preserved  in  book  form  for  generations  to 
come. 

The  great  subjects  of  EzekiePs  visions  are  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem,  the  judgment  upon  the  nations,  and 
the  restoration  of  all  Israel  to  their  land  and  worship. 
In  the  last  of  these  subjects  he  displays  his  priestly 
training  much  more  than  Jeremiah.  His  knowledge  of 
the  temple  and  its  ritual  is  minute.  In  foretelling  the 
destruction  of  the  city  because  of  its  idolatry,  we  also 
miss  Jeremiah's  dominant  tone  of  sadness.  Ezekiel 
was  very  severe  in  his  denunciations  of  the  ungodly 
but  equally  tender  in  his  invitations  to  repentance.  He 
desired  that  the  exiles  should  learn  the  lesson  of  their 
chastisement.  If  they  did  so  he  had  for  them  the  com- 
forting assurance  of  restoration.  The  profound  and 
often  grand  symbolism  of  his  book  is  the  most  im- 
portant source  of  that  of  the  Eevelation.  EzekieFs 
prophecies  exhibit  a  powerful  imagination  and  much 
meditation  but  are  less  poetic  than  those  of  other 
prophets.  The  orderly  arrangement  of  the  book  is 
evidently  the  result  of  his  own  plan. 
Y.     Divisions. 

1.  Prophecies  foretelling  the  Fall  of  Jerusalem. 
Chapters  1-24. 

a.  The   prophet's   call    and   ordination.     Chapters 
1-3. 

h.  Prophecies  in  the  Fifth  Year.    Chapters  4-7. 

c.  Prophecies  in  the  Sixth  Year.    Chapters  8-19. 

d    Prophecies  in  the  Seventh  year.    Chapters  20-22. 

e.  Prophecy  in  the  Ninth  Year.    Chapter  24. 


EZEKIEL  207 

2.  Judgments  upon  the  :N"ations.    Chapters  25-32. 
a.  In  the  Ninth  Year.    Chapter  25. 

h.  In  the  Eleventh  Year.    Chapters  26-28. 
c.  In    the    Tenth,    Twenty-seventh    and    Eleventh 
Years,  against  Egypt.    Chapters  29-32. 

3.  Prophecies  of  the  Keturn  from  Exile  and  Estab- 
lishment.    Chapters  33-^8. 

a.  In  the  Twelfth  Year.     Chapters  33-39. 
l.  In  the  Twenty-fifth  Year  40-48. 


IV 

THE   TWELVE 

(1)  Hosea 

I.  Name.  The  book  is  named  from  its  author  V^n 
"  salvation."  The  name  is  the  same  in  Hebrew  as  the 
original  name  of  Joshua  (Num.  13:  8,  16)  and  that  of 
the  last  king  of  Israel  (II  Kings  15:30  etc.).  The 
Greek  form  of  the  prophet's  name  is  '^(rrji  and  the  Latin 
Osee.  In  the  Authorized  Version  Joshua's  original 
name  is  Oshea,  the  name  of  the  king  is  Hoshea,  and 
that  of  the  prophet  Hosea.  In  the  Revised  Version  the 
first  two  are  named  correctly  Hoshea  and  the  prophet 
incorrectly  Hosea. 

II.  Composition.  The  greater  part  of  the  book  is 
acknowledged  to  be  the  work  of  that  prophet.  Several 
critics,  however,  such  as  Stade,  AYellhausen,  Cornill  and 
Harper,  assert  that  it  contains  many  later  interpolations. 
Harper  classifies  them  as  follows: 

1.  References  to  Judah  added  l)y  a  Judaistic  editor 
after  the  Exile.  The  principal  of  these  are  1:7;  5:10. 
12,  13,  14;  6:4;  6:11a;  8:14;  10:11b;  11:12b  and 
12:2. 

Answer. — a.  Hosea  looked  upon  the  kings  of  the 
northern  kingdom  as  usurpers  and  the  house  of  David 
in  Jerusalem  as  the  rightful  rulers  (3:5;  8:4).  He 
therefore  dates  his  prophecy  according  to  the  legitimate 
rulers  even  though  his  ministry  was  in  the  northern 
kingdom. 


THE    TWELVE— HO  SEA  209 

h.  The  allusions  of  Hosea  to  the  southern  kingdom 
are  not  more  numerous  than  those  of  Isaiah  to  the 
northern  kingdom,  although  his  ministry  was  in  the 
southern.  The  relation  between  the  two  kingdoms  was 
intimate  according  to  the  prophetic  view. 

2.  The  Messianic  allusions  (1 :  10  to  2  : 1 ;  2  :  6-7,  14- 
16,  18-23;  3:5;  11:8b,  9a,  11  and  14:1-8)  are  said 
to  be  inconsistent  with  Hosea's  situation  and  declaration 
of  the  approaching  destruction  of  Samaria.  They  are 
therefore  assigned  to  an  exilic  date  after  Ezekiel  and 
Deutero-Isaiah. 

Answer. — Other  critics  such  as  Strack  and  Driver 
admit  that  it  is  a  characteristic  of  the  prophets  to  give 
an  ideal  picture  of  the  restoration  after  severe  threat- 
enings. 

3.  Explanatory  insertions  "of  a  technical,  archaeo- 
logical or  historical  character  "  (4 :  13d ;  5 :  6 ;  7 :  4,  16c ; 
8:8b;  9:1b,  9a,  10;  10:5,  14b;  12: 13;  13: 4b-7)  were 
added  from  time  to  time. 

Answer. — These  may  be  satisfactorily  explained  as 
comments  of  the  prophet  himself. 

4.  Miscellaneous  interpolations  "  for  which  no  special 
motive  may  be  discovered ''  (8  :  4-5,  10,  14;  9  :  la,  8). 

Answer. — In  the  condensed  form  in  which  the  work 
of  the  prophets  has  come  down  to  us,  imperfect  connec- 
tion with  the  context  is  not  sufficient  reason  for  regard- 
ing a  passage  as  an  insertion. 

5.  "  Chapter  14 :  10— is  a  product  of  the  later  wisdom 
period."  Thus  the  book  did  not  receive  its  present  form 
according  to  Harper  until  the  Greek  period  (B.C.  333). 

Answer. — The  subjective  and  arbitrary  character  of 
these  assertions  is  sufficient  refutation.  Although  in 
default  of  historical  evidence  it  cannot  be  proved  that 


210     OLD    TESTAMEXT    IXTEODUCTION" 

these  are  not  insertions,  the  presumption  must  always 
be  in  favor  of  the  unity  of  a  book. 

The  text  of  Hosea  is  said  to  be  in  places  incurably 
corrupt.  But  the  passages  cited  (4:4,  18;  5:2,  1,  11; 
6:7;  7:4;  8:10b,  13;  9 :  8,  13;  10:  9;  11 :  3,  6,  7,  12) 
are  inadequate  to  prove  that  assertion. 

III.  Author.  Hosea  was  the  son  of  Beeri.  He 
prophesied  in  the  northern  kingdom  during  the  reign  of 
Jeroboam  II  and  later  and  during  the  time  of  Uzziah, 
Jotham,  Ahaz,  and  Hezekiah,  the  same  kings  of  Judah 
with  whom  Isaiah  labored.  According  to  the  dates  of 
the  kings  derived  from  the  scriptural  figures  the  reign 
of  Jeroboam  II  in  Israel  closed  in  784  B.C.  while  that 
of  Hezekiah  in  Judah  began  726  B.C.  If  these  dates 
be  correct,  Hosea's  ministry  must  have  been  a  very  long 
one,  covering  about  sixty  years  (785-725  B.C.).  Such 
an  explanation  would  require  a  life  of  eighty  years.  If 
however  the  dates  derived  from  Assyrian  sources  be 
correct  (Jeroboam  II  782-741;  Uzziah  789-753  and 
Hezekiah  726-697)  Hosea's  ministry  may  have  been 
much  shorter,  extending  over  about  thirty  years  (755- 
725  B.C.).  In  either  case  Amos  was  the  contemporary 
of  Hosea  in  the  early  part  of  his  ministry  and  Isaiah 
and  Micah  during  the  later  part. 

Hosea  was  married  to  Gomer  the  daughter  of  Diblaim. 
Their  three  children  were  given  symbolic  names  by 
divine  command:  the  eldest  son  Jezreel,  because  the 
blood  of  Jezreel  would  be  avenged;  the  daughter  Lo- 
ruhamah  ("not  having  obtained  mercy")  because  God 
would  show  no  mercy  to  the  northern  kingdom;  and 
the  youngest  son  Lo-ammi  ("not  my  people")  because 
Israel  were  no  longer  considered  the  people  of  God. 
The  marriage  of  Hosea  with  "  a  wife  of  whoredoms  " 


THE  TWELVE— HOSEA  211 

and  the  children  of  the  union  are  symbolic  of  the  rela- 
tion of  Jehovah  to  Israel.  The  marriage  and  the  birth 
of  the  three  children  actually  occurred.  If  it  were  an 
allegory  the  name  of  the  wife  would  be  symbolical,  as 
well  as  those  of  the  children.  The  marriage  is  recorded 
as  a  literal  occurrence. 

IV.  Theme.  Hosea  bears  somewhat  the  same  rela- 
tion to  the  northern  kingdom  as  Jeremiah  to  the 
southern.  Each  foretold  the  approaching  destruction 
of  the  kingdom  in  which  he  ministered.  The  same  in- 
tense and  pathetic  love  of  God  for  His  people  is  charac- 
teristic of  both  books. 

Yet  Hosea  was  further  removed  from  the  fall  of 
Samaria  than  Jeremiah  from  that  of  Jerusalem.  Hosea 
began  his  ministry  in  a  time  of  prosperity  and  foretold 
the  speedy  overthrow  of  the  house  of  Jehu,  of  which 
Jeroboam  II  was  the  fourth  king.  During  the  frequent 
political  changes  and  troublous  times  which  followed 
Jeroboam's  death,  the  prophet  continued  with  great 
tenderness  to  predict  the  downfall  of  Israel  and  to  urge 
the  people  to  repentance.  The  fact  that  his  message  was 
based  upon  a  symbolic  event  of  great  sadness  in  his 
own  house,  gave  a  warmth  and  pathos  to  his  words  which 
is  not  equalled  by  any  other  prophet. 

V.     Divisions. 

1.  The  apostasy  of  Israel,  figuratively  depicted  by  the 
prophet's  marrying  "  a  wife  of  whoredoms."  Chapters 
1-3. 

2.  The  same  apostasy  literally  described  with  the 
yearning  of  Jehovah  over  Israel,  exhortations  to  repent- 
ance, and  promise  of  restoration.    Chapters  4-14. 


212     OLD    TESTAMEXT    INTEODUCTION 


(2)  Joel 

I.  Name.  The  book  is  named  from  its  author,  ?isV 
meaning  "  Jehovah  is  God."  It  is  a  very  common  name 
in  scripture  (I  Sam.  8 :  2 ;  I  Chron.  4 :  35-4:3 ;  5 :  4,  12 ; 
6:36;  7:3;  11:38;  15:7;  27:20;  II  Chron.  29:12; 
Ezra  10 :  43 ;  Neh.  11 :  9) .  The  form  of  the  name  in  the 
Septuagint  is  'IojtjX. 

II.  Date.  The  book  is  not  dated  according  to  the 
reign  of  any  king.  Accordingly  we  are  confined  to  in- 
ternal evidences  for  guidance  concerning  the  time  of 
the  prophet.  Nor  are  these  evidences  many  or  powerful. 
ISTeither  Syrians,  Assyrians,  nor  Chaldeans  are  men- 
tioned. Hence  the  presumption  is  very  strong  that  the 
book  was  written  either  before  the  reign  of  Ahaz  (742- 
726  B.C.)  when  those  nations  became  prominent  among 
the  enemies  of  Judah,  or  after  the  Exile  when  they  had 
ceased  to  be  such  (after  536  B.C.).  The  view  of  Konig 
that  it  belongs  in  the  last  years  of  Josiah's  reign  has  met 
with  little  favor. 

Credner  and  after  him  a  large  numb^  of  critics  assign 
the  book  to  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Joash  in 
Judah  (879-839  B.C.).  The  arguments  for  this  view 
are  as  follows: 

1.  The  enemies  of  Judah  mentioned  by  Joel  (3:4, 
19)  are  the  Phenicians,  Philistines,  Egypt  and  Edom. 
Of  these  Edom  and  Philistia  had  been  at  war  with 
Judah  during  the  reign  of  Jehoram  (893-885  B.C.)  only 
a  few  years  before  Joash  (II  Kings  8:  20-22;  II  Chron. 
21:16-17).  Egypt  was  still  hostile  to  Judah  in  that 
time,  for  Shishak  had  invaded  Judah  in  the  fifth  year 


THE  TWELVE— JOEL  213 

of  Eehoboam  (974  B.C.)  while  Egypt  was  an  ally  of 
Judah  in  the  century  after  Joash  (Isaiah  30  and  31]. 
On  the  other  hand  neither  Syria  nor  Assyria  had  begun 
to  attack  Judah  in  the  time  of  Joash. 

2.  The  book  of  Amos  makes  use  of  Joel  (compare 
Joel  1 : 4  and  2:25  with  Amos  4:9;  Joel  3 :  16  with 
Amos  1:2  and  Joel  3:18  with  Amos  9:13).  That 
these  are  references  of  Amos  to  Joel  and  not  of  Joel  to 
Amos  is  shown  by  their  agreement  with  the  circle  of 
ideas  in  Joel  rather  than  in  Amos.  But  Amos  proph- 
esied in  the  reign  of  Uzziah  of  Judah  (810-758  B.C.) 
and  Jeroboam  II  of  Israel  (825-784  B.C.).  Joel  must 
therefore  have  preceded  that  time. 

3.  The  king  is  not  mentioned  but  rather  the  elders 
and  priests  (Joel  1 :  2,  13-14).  This  fits  admirably  with 
the  time  suggested.  Joash  ascended  the  throne  when 
he  was  seven  years  of  age  (II  Kings  11:21).  In  his 
minority  Jehoiada  the  high-priest  and  the  elders  were 
the  virtual  rulers  of  the  country. 

4.  The  absence  of  censure  for  particular  sins  agrees 
with  the  time  of  Joash  better  than  with  any  other  which 
can  be  mentioned. 

Driver,  Merx^  Cornill  and  others  assign  Joel  to  a 
post-exilic  date,  during  the  fifth  century  B.C.  The 
principal  arguments  for  this  position  are  these: 

1.  Joel  3 :  2  is  said  to  be  a  recollection  of  the  scatter- 
ing of  Judah  before  the  Exile. 

Answer. — Keil  and  others  have  pointed  out  that  this 
is  a  predictive  passage.  Therefore  it  contains  no  evi- 
dence of  a  post-exilic  date. 

2.  The  mention  of  the  sale  of  Jewish  prisoners  by 
the  Phenicians  to  "the  sons  of  Javan ''  (Joel  3:6)  is 
said  to  agree  better  with  a  post-exilic  date. 


214     OLD  TESTAMENT    USTTRODUCTION 

Answer. — "  The  sons  of  Javan  "  are  mentioned  as  a 
distant  people  not  well-known  to  Judah,  while  the 
Phenicians,  who  were  hostile  to  Jiidah,  in  the  early  days 
of  the  divided  kingdom  were  the  greatest  maritime 
nation  of  antiquity.  It  is  not  strange  that  they  sold 
Jewish  captives  to  the  Greeks  as  early  as  the  time  of 
Joash. 

3.  Joel  makes  no  mention  of  the  northern  kingdom 
but  speaks  of  Israel  as  one  people  (Joel  2:27;  3:2,  16). 
Therefore,  it  is  argued,  Israel  must  have  already  gone 
into  exile. 

Answer. — a.  Since  JoeFs  ministry  was  with  the  king- 
dom of  Judah,  he  had  no  occasion  to  mention  the 
northern  kingdom. 

h.  Joel  uses  the  name  Israel  as  the  original  name 
which  rightfully  belonged  to  the  southern  kingdom  even 
before  the  fall  of  Samaria. 

4.  No  king  of  Judah  is  mentioned,  implying  a  post- 
exilic  time  when  there  was  no  king.  This  matter  has 
already  been  satisfactorily  explained. 

In  addition  to  these  arguments  the  following  consid- 
erations are  evidence  for  the  pre-exilic  date. 

1.  If  the  book  were  composed  in  the  Persian  period, 
its  entire  silence  concerning  Persia  and  its  kings  and 
the  struggles  which  Judah  underwent  immediately  after 
the  Exile  is  very  strange.  The  temple  and  its  worship 
are  well  established.  This  fact  induces  Cornill  to  date 
the  book  about  400  B.C.  But  it  agrees  better  with  the 
time  before  the  Exile. 

2.  The  position  between  Hosea  and  Amos,  the  oldest 
of  the  Prophets,  seems  to  indicate  the  ancient  Hebrew 
tradition  that  Joel  also  was  very  early. 

3.  The  literary  style  of  Joel  differs  greatly  from  that 


THE  TWELVE— JOEL  215 

of  Haggai,  Zecliariah,  and  Malaclii,  who  were  his  con- 
temporaries if  he  prophesied  after  the  Exile. 

Thus  the  weight  of  the  evidence  favors  the  date  m 
the  time  of  Joash,  possibly  8T5-865  B.C. 

Ill  Composition.  Eothstein  has  attacked  the  unity 
of  the  book,  assigning  1:1  to  2:27  to  the  reign  of 
Joash  and  2:28  to  3:21  to  a  post-exilic  date,  while 
Cornill  speaks  of  it  as  a  compendium  of  late  Jewish 
eschatology.  The  uniform  plan  and  style  of  the  book 
are  sufficient  answer  to  this  view,  which  has  not  indeed 
met  with  general  acceptance. 

IV.  Author.  All  that  is  known  of  Joel  is  the  state- 
ment of  1:1  that  he  was  the  son  of  Pethuel.  In  the 
Septuagint  this  name  has  the  form  Badovhl  and  in  the 
Vulgate  Phatuel.  It  is  generally  agreed  that  he  minis- 
tered in  the  kingdom  of  Judah  and  probably  m  Jeru- 

cplprn 

V  '  Theme.  The  occasion  of  this  prophecy  was  an 
unprecedented  plague  of  locusts  in  Judah.  Such  a 
plague  destroys  all  vegetation  and  is  a  worse  calamity 
than  the  devastation  of  an  invading  army.  The  prophet 
describes  this  visitation  so  vividly  that  it  is  best  to 
consider  it  an  actual  occurrence  and  not  a  symbolic 
description  of  an  invading  army  or  of  the  damaging 
effects  of  profligacy  and  idolatry  (Eev.  9:3-11).  Joel 
views  it  as  a  judgment  of  Jehovah  for  the  peoples  sms 
and  urges  them  to  repent  lest  a  worse  thing  come  upon 
them  If  they  do  so,  God  will  withdraw  the  punishment 
and  give  them  abundant  blessings.  Accordingly  the 
latter  part  of  the  book  is  filled  with  a  description  of  the 
spiritual  blessings  of  Israel  in  the  last  days  and  the 
iudsments  of  God  upon  their  enemies.  The  book  is 
preeminently  eschatological.    Yet  the  predictions  were 


216     OLD    TESTAMENT    INTEODUCTIOX 

meant  primarily  for  the  comfort  of  the  people  in  Joel's 
time. 
VI.    Divisions. 

1.  The  plague  of  locusts  and  the  proclamation  of  a 
fast.    1:1  to  2:27. 

2.  Blessing  and  judgment  in  the  last  days.    2 :  28  to 
3:21. 


THE  TWELVE— AMOS  217 


(3)  Amos 

I.  Name.  The  book  is  named  from  its  author  Dioj; 
meaning  '^burden"  or  "burden-bearer."  Its  form  in 
the  Septuagint  is  M/aw?.  The  name  should  not  be  con- 
fused with  that  of  Amoz,  the  father  of  Isaiah,  which 
has  a  different  form  in  the  Hebrew  (  ^i^N  ) . 

II.  Composition.  The  book  is  almost  universally 
acknowledged  to  be  the  work  of  Amos.  The  recently 
expressed  opinion  that  it  was  a  much  later  writing, 
ascribed  by  its  unknown  author  to  the  Amos  mentioned 
in  the  book,  is  sufficiently  answered  by  a  consideration 
of  the  agreement  of  the  book  with  the  times  of  Amos. 

More  general  is  the  view  that  the  book  contains  sev- 
eral later  interpolations.  The  arguments  are  similar  to 
those  concerning  the  alleged  interpolations  in  Hosea, 
viz.,  the  references  to  Judah  and  the  lack  of  connection 
of  certain  passages  with  the  remainder  of  the  book. 
There  is  a  wide  divergence  of  opinion  among  critics  on 
this  subject.  Harper  is  the  most  radical,  rejecting  1 : 1- 
2,  9-12;  2:4-5,  12;  4:7b,  8a,  13;  5:8-9,  18b,  22b; 
6:2,  9-lla;  7:  Id,  8a;  8:2a,  6,  11a;  9:5-6,  8-15. 
Cheyne,  Duhm,  Stade,  and  Wellhausen  reject  a  few  of 
these  passages  with  one  or  two  others,  but  W.  E.  Smith 
and  Kuenen  defend  2  :  4-5 ;  4 :  13 ;  5  :  8-9  and  9  :  5-6. 

Answer. — This  difference  of  opinion,  even  among 
radical  critics,  shows  that  the  arguments  for  rejection 
are  inadequate.  Since  Amos  came  from  Tekoa  in  Judah, 
it  is  difficult  to  see  why  he  should  not  mention  Judah 
and  Jerusalem.  The  assertion  that  other  passages  are 
too  loosely  connected  with  Amos  to  be  the  work  of  that 


218     OLD    TESTAMEXT    IXTRODUCTIOX 

prophet  is  largely  subjective.  Logically  carried  out  it 
would  deny  that  an  author  can  introduce  a  parenthesis 
in  his  work.  The  critics  manufacture  an  ideal  Amos 
from  a  part  of  his  book  and  then  affirm  that  other  state- 
ments of  the  book  do  not  agree  with  that  ideal.  The 
difficulty  is  not  with  the  book  but  with  the  false  method 
of  the  critics.  If  there  are  interpolations  in  it,  which 
is  inherently  improbable,  our  knowledge  is  too  meagre 
to  discover  them. 

III.  Author.  Amos  was  one  of  the  herdsmen  of 
Tekoa  in  Judah,  about  ten  miles  south  of  Jerusalem. 
The  word  rendered  "  herdsmen  "  (  Dnpj  )  is  found  else- 
where only  once  (II  Kings  3:4)  and  is  supposed  to 
mean  the  shepherd  of  a  peculiar  small  kind  of  sheep, 
famous  for  their  wool.  He  also  tended  larger  cattle 
and  was  a  dresser  of  sycamore  trees  (Amos  7:14). 
From  his  occupation  as  well  as  the  omission  of  his 
father's  name  we  may  conclude  that  he  came  from  an 
obscure  and  poor  family.  He  did  not  belong  to  the 
prophetic  order  but  was  called  from  his  ordinary  occu- 
pation to  be  a  prophet  in  Israel  (Amos  7:  14-15).  He 
went  to  Bethel,  the  principal  sanctuary  of  the  northern 
kingdom,  and  foretold  the  destruction  of  that  kingdom 
for  their  sins.  After  a  time,  the  chief  priest  of  Bethel, 
Amaziah,  reported  him  to  king  Jeroboam  II  as  a  traitor 
and  ordered  him  to  leave  the  country.  It  was  probably 
after  his  return  to  Tekoa  that  he  committed  to  writing 
this  summary  of  his  prophecy. 

His  exact  time  is  difficult  to  determine  because  of  the 
uncertainty  concerning  the  dates  of  the  kings  of  the 
northern  kingdom.  If  the  older  chronology  be  correct 
Jeroboam  II  of  Israel  was  contemporary  with  Uzziah 
of  Judah  from  810  to  784  B.C.     If  the  dates  from 


THE    TWELVE— AMOS  219 

Assyrian  sources  be  preferred,  they  were  contemporaries 
from  782  to  753  B.C.  On  the  former  calculation  the 
ministry  of  Amos  was  probably  from  795-785  B.C.  but 
on  the  latter  760-750  B.C.  The  recent  attempt  to  make 
the  date  still  later  (about  734  B.C.)  has  not  been  suc- 
cessful. The  time  of  the  earthquake  in  UzziaVs  reign 
being  unknown,  it  furnishes  no  clew  to  establish  the 
time  of  the  prophecy  (Amos  1:1;  Zech.  14 :  5).  Hosea 
was  the  younger  contemporary  and  successor  of  Amos. 

IV.  Theme.  The  principal  subject  of  the  prophecy 
is  the  judgment  upon  Israel  because  of  their  idolatry  and 
other  sins.  The  time  of  Jeroboam  II  was  one  of  great 
temporal  prosperity  but  it  was  also  characterized  by  prof- 
ligacy, oppression  and  injustice.  Against  these  Amos 
inveighed  fearlessly,  foretelling  the  ruin  of  Israel,  which 
occurred  sixty  years  later  (722  B.C.).  He  also  foretold 
the  destruction  of  the  surrounding  nations  and  even  of 
Judah  for  their  sins.  He  presents  a  high  moral  standard 
of  conduct  in  preference  to  a  cold  formal  religion. 
Jehovah  is  to  him  the  God  of  all  nations,  who  deals  with 
all  according  to  their  works  (9:7).  Yet  at  the  end  of 
the  prophecy  he  foretells  the  restoration  of  the  worship 
as  in  David's  time. 

V.  Divisions. 

1.  Judgment  upon  the  surrounding  nations.  Chap- 
ters 1-2. 

2.  Judgment  upon  Israel.    Chapters  3-6. 

3.  Symbolic  predictions  of  Israel's  doom,  closing  with 
the  promise  of  restoration.    Chapters  7-9. 


220     OLD    TESTAMEXT    IXTEODUCTIOiSr 


(4)  Ohadiah 

I.  Name.  The  book  is  named  from  its  author  n^7?J^ 
meaning  "  worshipper  of  Jehovah."  This  was  a  common 
name  (I  Ejngs  18:3-4;  I  Chron.  3:21;  7:3;  8:28; 
12:9;  27:19;  II  Chron.  17:7;  34:12;  Ezra  8:29; 
Xeh,  10:5;  12:25).  In  the  Septuagint  the  title  is 
given  in  the  genitive  'OjSdiou  following  verse  1  {^opaai<i 
"O^dtoo).    In  the  Vulgate  the  name  is  Abdias. 

II.  Date  and  Composition.  The  unity  of  this  little 
book  depends  chiefly  upon  the  date  to  which  it  is  as- 
signed. The  prophecy  of  Jeremiah  against  Edom  (49 : 
7-22)  exhibits  much  in  common  with  that  of  Obadiah. 
All  critics  are  agreed  that  Obadiah  did  not  borrow  from 
Jeremiah  but  that  rather  Obadiah  represents  the  older 
form  of  the  prophecy.  Hence  the  substance  of  Obadiah 
must  antedate  Jeremiah.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is 
a  difference  of  opinion  concerning  the  allusions  to 
calamities  in  Judah  in  verses  11,  12  and  14.  Many 
critics  confidently  affirm  that  these  verses  refer  to  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  586  B.C.  as  a  past  event. 
Others  find  the  same  reference  in  the  prediction  of  verse 
20.  But  if  so  the  book  cannot  be  a  unit.  Hence  the 
critics  affirm  that  verses  1-9  and  possibly  16a,  18-19  and 
20b  were  the  work  of  the  original  Obadiah  who  wrought 
some  time  before  the  Exile,  and  that  the  references  to 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  verses  10-14  and  the 
other  parts  of  the  book  were  added  by  another  writer 
after  the  Exile.  Cornill  and  Kuenen  date  this  redaction 
in  the  fifth  century  but  Cheyne  assigns  it  to  about 
350  B.C. 


THE    TWELVE— OBADIAH  221 

Answer. — All  the  facts  in  the  case  are  explained  much 
more  simply  on  the  supposition  that  the  entire  book  of 
Obadiah  was  written  by  that  prophet  before  the  time  of 
Jeremiah.      Then    Jeremiah    made    use    of    Obadiah 
directly.    It  is  not  necessary  to  refer  verses  11,  12  and 
14  to  the  events  of  586  B.C.    They  are  better  explained 
by  reference  to  II  Chron.  21 :  16-17  where  it  is  recorded 
that  the  Philistines  and  Arabians  invaded  Judah  in  the 
reign  of  Jehoram  and  carried  away  the  king's  wives  and 
all  but  one  of  his  sons  besides  much  treasure.     Amos 
apparently  refers  to  this  event  in  connection  with  Edom 
(1:6).    Whether  verse  20  refers  to  the  invasion  in  the 
days  of  Jehoram  or  the  captivity  in  Babylon  need  not 
influence  the  decision  as  to  date  because  it  is  a  predic- 
tion.    The  assertion  of  Driver  that  "the  expressions 
which  Obadiah  uses  [notice  especially  "  cast  lots  upon 
Jerusalem  "]  appear  to  be  too  strong  to  be  referred  with 
probability  to  this  invasion,  which,  to  judge  from  the 
silence  of  the  Book  of  Kings,  was  little  more  than  a 
predatory  incursion,  from  the  effects  of  which  Judah 
speedily  recovered ''  (Introduction  p.  320),  does  not  take 
sufficient  account  of  the  statement  of  the  Chronicler. 
Whatever  be  the  true  explanation  of  the  silence  of  the 
Book  of  Kings,  the  deportation  of  the  king's  household 
and  all  his  treasure  was  a  sufficient  national  misfortune 
to  warrant  the  statements   of   Obadiah.     The  casting 
lots  upon  Jerusalem  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  the 
city  was  entirely  destroyed.    The  invasion  of  the  Philis- 
tines and  Arabians  occurred  toward  the  close  of  Jeho- 
ram's  reign  or  about  887   B.C.     Obadiah  must  have 
prophesied  after  this  event — how  much  later,  it  is  im- 
possible to  determine.     The  position  of  the  book  near 
the  beginning  of  the  twelve  Minor  Prophets  seems  to 


222     OLD    TESTAMEXT    INTEODUCTIOX 

indicate  the  Hebrew  opinion  of  its  great  antiquity. 
The  conjecture  of  Davis  (Dictionary  of  Bible  p.  528) 
that  Obadiah  prophesied  in  the  reign  of  Ahaz  when 
Edom  was  specially  hostile  to  Judah  (II  Chron.  28:  17) 
seems  quite  probable.  This  would  give  the  date  742- 
726  B.C.  Upon  this  theory  Obadiah  was  a  contem- 
porary of  Isaiah,  Hosea,  Amos  and  Micah. 

III.  Author.  Xothing  whatever  is  known  concern- 
ing this  prophet's  life.  Josephus  identifies  him  with 
Obadiah,  the  governor  under  Ahab  (I  Kings  18:3-4) 
but  the  date  of  his  prophecy  as  well  as  its  references  to 
Judah  show  that  he  lived  and  prophesied  in  Judah 
much  later  than  that  time. 

IV.  Theme.  The  prophecy  relates  entirely  to  Edom 
in  its  unbrotherly  relation  to  Israel.  These  unbrotherly 
acts  are  recalled  and  the  destruction  of  Edom  is  foretold. 
On  the  contrary  Israel  is  to  be  established  and  enlarged. 


THE  TWELVE— JONAH  223 


(5)  Jonah 

I.  Name.  The  book  is  named  from  its  author  nji'' 
meaning  a  "  dove."  In  the  Septuagint  the  name  takes 
the  form  '/o^va?  and  in  the  Vulgate  Jonas,  while  in  the 
Authorized  Version  of  the  New  Testament  it  is  Jona, 
Jonas,  or  Jonah. 

II.  Authorship  and  Date.  Jonah  was  the  son  of 
Amittai.  The  only  mention  of  him  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment outside  of  this  book  is  in  II  Kings  14 :  25.  There 
we  are  informed  that  he  lived  in  Gath-Hepher  in  the 
territory  of  Zebulon  (Josh.  19:13)  north  of  Nazareth 
and  that  he  had  prophesied  to  Jeroboam  II  that  the 
Lord  would  restore  the  ancient  boundary  to  Israel.  This 
probably  occurred  early  in  the  reign  of  that  king  of 
which  the  dates  are  B.C.  825-784  or  by  another  calcu- 
lation B.C.  782-741.  The  events  recorded  in  the  book 
of  Jonah  are  not  dated  nor  do  we  know  how  long  his 
ministry  lasted.  It  is  probable  that  he  wrote  the  book 
soon  after  his  return  from  Nineveh.  He  was  a  prophet 
of  the  northern  kingdom  about  825-784  B.C.  and  his 
contemporaries  were  Hosea  and  Amos  in  the  northern 
kingdom  and  Isaiah  and  Micah  in  the  southern. 

Many  critics  deny  thai  Jonah  wrote  the  looTc  and 
assign  it  to  a  post-exilic  date,  500  B.C.  or  later.  The 
grounds  of  this  conclusion  are  as  follows: 

1.  It  is  asserted  that  Jonah  is  not  said  to  have  been 
the  author. 

2.  The  book  is  said  to  contain  several  Aramaisms  and 
late  words  or  expressions.  The  shorter  form  of  the 
relative  pronoun  is  used.    The  title  "  God  of  Heaven" 


224     OLD    TESTAMENT    IXTEODUCTIOX 

(Jonah  1:9)  is  used  by  Ezra,  Xehemiah,  and  Daniel 
but  never  by  a  pre-exilic  writer.  UVq  is  used  in  the 
Aramaic  sense  of  a  decree  (Jonah  3:7).  Also  nrsiD 
(1:5),  mvn]  (1:6),  pk^:  (1:12),  !^;i  (2:letc.) 
and  rif^py  (4: 10)  are  considered  late  forms. 

3.  Historical  indications  of  the  date  are  found  in 
Jonah  3 :  3  and  3:6.  In  the  former  passage  it  is  said 
"  Nineveh  was  (  nn^n )  a  great  city,^'  as  though  its 
greatness  were  past.  This  is  said  to  indicate  a  date 
after  606  B.C.  when  Nineveh  was  overthrown.  In  the 
latter  passage  the  king  of  Assyria  is  called  "the  king 
of  Nineveh,"  a  title  which  according  to  Sayce  could  not 
have  been  used  while  the  Assyrian  Kingdom  endured. 
Furthermore  if  the  name  of  this  king  had  been  known 
to  the  author,  he  would  probably  have  mentioned  it. 

4.  The  poem  in  Jonah  2  is  said  to  have  borrowed 
from  certain  late  Psalms. 

Verse  3 compare Psalm  42 :  7 

"      5 "      "       69:1 

"       9 "      "       50:14 

Answer. — 1.  The  book  is  ascribed  to  Jonah  by  the 
title  in  the  same  way  that  the  books  of  Hosea,  Joel, 
Micah,  Zephaniah,  Haggai,  and  Zechariah  are  ascribed 
to  those  prophets.  The  fact  that  the  word  of  Jehovah 
to  Jonah  was  a  command  to  go  to  Nineveh  rather  than 
to  give  exhortations  to  the  people  does  not  alter  the  force 
of  the  title. 

2.  The  literary  argument  is  confessedly  weak  in  view 
of  the  small  amount  of  Hebrew  literature  by  which  we 
can  trace  the  usages  of  the  language  in  various  times. 
Forms  and  words  are  not  necessarily  late  because  they 


THE  TWELVE— JONAH  225 

occur  only  or  chiefly  in  late  books  of  the  canon,  nor 
necessarily  Aramaisms  because  they  agree  with  the  usual 
Aramaic  as  against  the  usual  Hebrew  form.  In  partic- 
ular the  shorter  relative  is  found  in  Judges  (5  :  7 ;  6 :  17 ; 
7:  12;  and  8:  26).  It  was  necessary  for  Jonah  (1:9) 
to  explain  to  his  shipmates  who  Jehovah  was.  The 
name  "  God  of  Heaven  '^  was  a  very  natural  and  proper 
one  in  speaking  to  the  heathen.  That  the  same  word 
should  be  used  for  the  decree  of  the  king  of  Nineveh 
in  Jonah's  time  (  UV^  Jonah  3:7)  which  was  used  for 
those  of  Cyrus,  Darius,  and  Artaxerxes  (Ezra  6:  14)  is 
not  surprising.  HJ^Dp.  is  found  nowhere  else  in  the  Old 
Testament  but  it  is  a  true  Hebrew  form.  niJ'yn^  is  found 
only  once  as  an  Aramaic  word  (Dan.  6:3)  and  once  in 
this  Hebrew  passage.  It  is  an  evidence  of  the  historicity 
of  the  book  for  it  is  a  foreign  word  in  the  mouth  of  the 
foreign  shipmaster,  pn^  is  found  also  in  Psa.  107 :  30 
and  Prov.  26:20  in  the  same  sense  and  the  Piel  of    ri:iJ:i 

T  T 

in  Job  7:3  and  Psa.  6 :  17.    If  the  noun  f^oy  is  found 

T    T 

in  writings  before  the  time  of  Jonah  (Judges  10 :  16 ; 
Ps.  90 :  10,  etc.)  it  is  difficult  to  see  why  the  verb 
p.^py  is  unnatural  in  his  time. 

3.  The  statement,  "Nineveh  was  a  great  city" 
(Jonah  3:3),  is  a  parenthesis  which  may  have  been 
added  to  the  book  at  a  later  time.  It  is  not  however 
impossible  from  the  pen  of  Jonah.  It  stands  in  the 
midst  of  a  description  in  the  past  tense  and  need  not 
imply  that  Nineveh  had  ceased  to  be  a  great  city  when 
the  prophet  wrote.  The  title  "  King  of  Nineveh  "  was 
the  natural  one  since  the  story  relates  only  to  that  city 
and  not  to  the  whole  kingdom.  There  is  no  evidence 
from  the  absence  of  the  king's  name  that  the  author 


226     OLD    TESTAMENT    IXTEODUCTION" 

lived  much  later  than  Jonah  and  did  not  know  it.  The 
book  was  intended  for  Israel.  Since  the  king  was  un- 
known to  them,  it  is  not  strange  that  Jonah  omitted  his 
name. 

4.  Aside  from  the  question  concerning  the  date  of 
the  Psalms  mentioned,  it  is  just  as  possible  that  the 
Psalms  quoted  from  Jonah  as  Jonah  from  the  Psalms. 
There  is  therefore  no  argument  for  the  post-exilic  date 
of  the  book  of  Jonah  from  the  passages  cited. 

III.  Purpose.  The  purpose  of  the  book  was  to  teach 
that  God's  gracious  plans  were  not  confined  to  Israel, 
as  the  chosen  people  selfishly  thought,  but  were  intended 
to  include  the  heathen.  Therefore  the  prophet  was  sent 
on  a  mission  to  Xineveh.  He  tried  to  escape  toward 
Tarshish  because,  like  his  countr3Tnen,  he  did  not  wish 
to  preach  the  gospel  to  Xineveh.  For  the  same  reason 
he  was  displeased  at  the  repentance  of  Xineveh.  The 
object-lesson  and  argument  of  Jehovah  with  Jonah  was 
really  His  argument  with  Israel  (Jonah  4:4-11). 

IV.  Interpretation.  Many  modern  writers  consider 
the  book  an  allegory  in  which  Jonah  stands  for  dis- 
obedient Israel,  the  sea  for  the  nations,  the  great  fish 
for  Babylon,  the  period  in  the  belly  of  the  fish  for  the 
Exile,  and  the  subsequent  obedience  and  disappointment 
of  Jonah  for  these  events  in  Israel's  history.  It  is 
argued : 

1.  If  this  were  a  historical  book,  it  would  have  been 
placed  with  the  other  histories  and  not  among  the 
Prophets. 

2.  The  sudden  and  universal  repentance  of  Xin- 
eveh and  the  decree  of  its  king  are  exceedingly  improb- 
able. 

3.  Nebuchadnezzar    is    represented    elsewhere    as    a 


THE  TWELVE— JOXAH  227 

dragon  which  swallows  Israel  and  casts  him  up  (Jer. 
51 :  34)  and  the  duration  of  the  Exile  is  said  to  be  three 
days  (Hos.  6:2). 

In  defense  of  the  historical  character  of  the  book  are 
the  following  arguments. 

1.  The  style  of  the  book  is  like  that  of  simple  history. 
The  greater  part  of  it  is  in  prose.  The  only  poetry  is 
Jonah's  prayer  to  God.  The  book  is  not  presented  as 
an  allegory.  It  speaks  of  well-known  places  (Joppa, 
Tarshish  and  Nineveh).  Its  principal  character  is  a 
historical  one  whose  name,  lineage  and  birthplace  are 
mentioned  elsewhere  (II  Kings  14:25).  The  names 
are  not  symbolical  as  in  an  allegory. 

2.  The  references  of  our  Lord  to  the  book  (Matt. 
12:39-40;  Luke  11:29-30)  imply  his  belief,  which  in- 
deed was  the  universal  opinion  of  the  Jews,  that  the 
book  contained  real  history. 

3.  The  book  was  placed  among  the  Prophets  because 
it  was  written  by  a  prophet.  It  was  not  however  placed 
among  the  prophetic  histories  (Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel, 
and  Kings)  because  it  was  not  mere  history,  but  typical, 
predictive  history.  This  typical  interpretation  justifies 
its  position  among  the  Minor  Prophets. 

4.  Hosea  and  Jeremiah  may  have  borrowed  from 
Jonah.  At  any  rate  the  passages  in  those  prophecies  are 
too  isolated  to  prove  the  allegorical  interpretation  of 
Jonah. 

5.  Mere  improbability  of  the  events  recorded  cannot 
be  an  argument  against  their  having  occurred.  The 
appearance  of  a  strange  preacher  in  Nineveh  with  his 
dreadful  warning  may  well  have  impressed  the  mind  of 
a  superstitious  king,  who  like  the  ancients  recognized 
the  real  existence  of  the  gods  of  other  nations.     The 


228     OLD    TESTAMENT    INTEODUCTION 

king    viewed    Jonah    as    a    warning    messenger    from 
Jehovah. 

V.     Divisions. 

1.  Jonah's  disobedience  and  its  consequences.    Chap- 
ter 1. 

2.  Jonah's  prayer  in  the  belly  of  the  fish.    Chapter  2. 

3.  Jonah's  second  mission  to  Xineveh  and  its  effects. 
a.  Upon  Xineveh.     Chapter  3. 

d.  Upon  Jonah.    Chapter  -i. 


THE  TWELVE— MICAH  229 


(6)  Micah 

I.  Name.  The  book  is  named  from  its  author  n^^o. 
This  is  an  abbreviation  of  l'"i',?''P  meaning  "  Who  is  like 
Jehovah?"  (Judges  17:1,  4).  In  the  Septuagint  the 
name  is  Mtxata?  and  in  the  Vulgate  Michseas.  The 
English  form  is  derived  from  the  Hebrew. 

II.  Composition.  It  is  generally  admitted  that 
Micah  was  the  author  of  the  greater  part  of  the  prophecy. 
Ewald  and  others  since  his  time  have  considered  chapters 
6-7  so  different  in  form  and  style  from  the  first  five 
chapters  that  they  assign  them  to  an  anonymous 
prophet  of  the  reign  of  Manasseh.  (Notice  especially 
Mic.  6:16.)  Wellhausen  and  Stade  think  that  7:7-20 
were  written  and  added  during  or  after  the  Exile  be- 
cause of  the  remarkable  similarity  with  Isaiah  40-66. 
Stade,  Cornill  and  others  deny  that  Micah  wrote  chap- 
ters 4  and  5.  Stade  and  Kuenen  also  assign  Micah 
2 :  12-13  to  an  exilic  and  Wellhausen  to  a  post-exilic 
date. 

In  defense  of  the  unity  of  the  book  we  present  the 
following  considerations : 

1.  The  expression  ''  Hear  "(1:2;3:1;6:1),  binds 
the  book  together  as  the  work  of  one  author. 

2.  The  arguments  of  the  critics  are  mainly  due  to 
the  fragmentary  character  of  the  book.  It  is  not  a 
continuous  argument  but  a  summary  of  his  prophecies 
by  the  prophet's  own  hand. 

3.  The  similarity  of  chapters  6-7  to  Isaiah  40-66 
does  not  indicate  their  late  date  since  Isaiah  was  written 
by  Isaiah,  a  contemporary  of  Micah, 


230     OLD    TESTAMEXT    IXTPtODUCTIOX 


4.  Chapters    4-7    exhibit    the   following    similarities 
to  writinojs  in  and  near  Micah's  time. 


M 


5. 
13   a 


cah  4:1-3 compare Isaiah  2  :  2-4 


4:3      . 

4:7     , 

4:9     , 

4:13a. 
4:13&. 
5:5  . 
5:13   . 

6:2      . 

6:4     . 

6:7     . 

6:8     . 

6:11  . 
6:14  . 


1 
2 

3 

10 
11 


sudden  change  of  subject 
the  fragmentary  nature  of 


Joel  3:10 

Is.   24:24 

I  Is.  13:8 
**'  1  Is.  21:3 

Is.  41:15-16 

Is.   23:18 

Is.     9:6 

Is.     2:8 

f  Hos.     4:1 
'  1  Hos.  12 :  2 

Amos   2 :  10 

..Is.    1:11 

Is.      1 :  17 

Hos.  6:6 

.Hos.  12:7 

.Hos.     4 :  10 

24:13 

Hos.  9:10 

.Is.    57 

Is.      1 

Hos.  4 

.  .Joel  2 

.Amos   9 


1  Ho 

■■■■{ 


1 

23 

18 

17 

11 


The  arguments  for  the  rejection  of  Micah  2 :  12- 
e   considered   inadequate   by   most   critics.     The 
s  sufficiently  explained  by 
:he  book. 


III.     Author.     Micah   was   a   native   of   Moresheth, 
probably  the  same  as  ]\Ioresheth-gath   (Mic.  1 :  14)   a 


THE  TWELVE— MICAH  231 

dependence  of  Gath.  He  was  an  inhabitant  of  the 
country.  His  prophecy  accordingly  does  not  show  the 
same  familiarity  with  the  politics  of  the  day  as  does 
that  of  Isaiah  who  lived  at  Jerusalem.  He  wrought 
during  the  reigns  of  Jotham,  Ahaz,  and  Hezekiah  but 
his  prophecies  relate  to  Israel  as  well  as  Judah.  Jere- 
miah quotes  Micah  3 :  12  as  having  been  given  in  the 
days  of  Hezekiah  (Jer.  26:18).  Thus  Micah  was  a 
younger  contemporary  of  Isaiah  and  Hosea  and  the 
approximate  date  of  his  ministry  was  745-700  B.C. 
Some  have  supposed  that  he  survived  during  the  early 
part  of  Manasseh's  reign  and  wrote  chapters  6-7  in 
that  time,  but  such  a  supposition  has  no  confirmation 
outside  of  the  book  itself. 

IV.  Theme.  Micah's  prophecy  concerns  both  Judah 
and  Israel,  but  the  part  relating  to  Israel  is  brief.  He 
lived  to  see  the  fall  of  Samaria  in  722  B.C.  The  same 
doom  he  foretold  for  Jerusalem  on  account  of  their 
sins.  As  a  man  of  the  people  however  he  dwelt  not 
so  much  upon  political  sins  as  upon  the  oppression  of 
the  peasantry  by  the  rich  landowners  of  Judah.  He 
took  the  part  of  the  poor  against  the  rich.  His  prophecy 
is  religious  and  moral  rather  than  political.  He  enumer- 
ates the  sins  of  the  people  and  foretells  their  punishment. 
Yet  beyond  the  days  of  punishment  he  foresees  the 
blessed  time  of  permanent  establishment  and  the  birth 
of  the  Messiah.  While  not  so  exalted  in  style  as  Isaiah, 
Micah  is  yet  vivid  and  full  of  local  references. 

V.  Divisions. 

1.  Judgment  upon  Israel  and  Judah.     Chapters  1-2. 

2.  Judgment  followed  by  restoration  and  the  Messi- 
anic reign.     Chapters  3-5. 

3.  Eeproof  and  promises.     Chapters  6-7. 


232     OLD    TESTAMENT    INTRODUCTION 


(7)  Nalium 

I.  Name.  The  book  is  named  from  its  author  D^im 
meaning  "  compassionate."  In  the  Septuagint  and  New 
Testament  the  name  has  the  form  Naobix  and  in  the 
Vulgate  Nahum. 

II.  Composition.  Until  recently  the  integrity  and 
authenticity  of  the  hook  of  Nahum  were  not  called  in 
question.  Since  1880  however  Bickell,  Gunkel,  Nowack 
and  others  have  endeavored  to  show  that  Nahum  1 :  2  to 
2:3  are  the  remains  of  an  acrostic  psalm  which  was 
composed  after  the  Exile  and  prefixed  to  the  genuine 
hook  of  Nahum.  This  view  is  not  generally  received. 
It  is  said  by  its  defenders  that  this  psalm  was  placed 
before  Nahum  because  its  subject  formed  an  appropri- 
ate introduction  to  the  book. 

This  admission  vitiates  their  argument.  Nahum 
placed  the  psalm  where  it  is  for  this  very  reason,  that 
it  was  a  suitable  introduction  to  his  book.  In  order 
to  substantiate  the  claim  to  an  alphabetic  arrangement 
it  is  necessary  to  alter  the  text  in  several  places,  to 
transpose  in  others,  and  to  make  some  verses  very  long 
and  others  very  short.  Even  if  that  arrangement  can 
be  established  it  is  very  scanty  evidence  for  the  late  date 
of  the  Psalm.  The  acrostic  arrangement  may  have 
been  in  use  in  the  century  before  the  Exile. 

III.  Date.  By  common  consent,  the  prophecy  of 
Nahum  is  dated  between  the  capture  of  No-amon  or 
Thebes  by  Assurbanipal  in  664-3  B.C.  and  the  fall 
of  Nineveh  in  606  B.C.  because  the  former  event  is 
referred  to  as  past   (3:8)   and  the  latter  is  foretold. 


THE    TWELVE— NAHUM  233 

The  date  cannot  be  fixed  more  precisely.  The  sugges- 
tion of  Kuenen,  that  the  unsuccessful  attack  of  Cyaxeres 
upon  Nineveh  about  623  B.C.  may  have  been  the  occasion 
of  this  prophecy,  is  as  likely  as  any. 

IV.  Author.  The  sum  of  our  knowledge  concern- 
ing Nahum  is  that  he  is  called  "  the  Elkoshite  "  (1:1)- 
The  location  of  this  Elkosh  is  uncertain.  The  identi- 
fication with  Alkush  27  miles  north  of  Mosul  (the 
ancient  Nineveh)  where  the  prophet's  grave  is  shown 
is  based  upon  an  unreliable  modern  tradition.  Jerome's 
identification  with  Elkesi  (modern  Elkozeh)  in  north- 
ern Galilee  is  more  likely.  The  reference  to  Judah 
(1:15)  seems  however  to  imply  that  Nahum  lived  in 
the  southern  kingdom.  Therefore  the  most  probable 
theory  is  that  which  places  Elkosh  about  midway  between 
Jerusalem  and  Gaza.  If  the  date  be  correct,  Nahum 
was  a  contemporary  of  Zephaniah. 

V.  Theme.  The  subject  of  the  prophecy  is  the 
downfall  of  Nineveh,  the  capital  of  Assyria,  the  great 
enemy  of  Israel.  The  prophet  describes  the  sins  of 
Nineveh  and  its  overthrow  in  vivid  language.  For 
grandeur  of  style,  Nahum  is  excelled  only  by  Isaiah. 

VI.  Divisions. 

1.  Psalm,  descriptive  of  Jehovah's  majesty.  Chap- 
ter 1. 

2.  Judgment  upon  Nineveh.     Chapters  2-3. 


234     OLD    TESTAMEXT    IXTRODUCTIOX 


(8)  EdbakTcuk 

I.  Name.  The  book  is  named  from  its  author  P^i53n. 
The  orgin  of  this  name  is  doubtful.  The  older  deriva- 
tion is  from  p3n  to  embrace,  hence  "the  embraced." 
Friedrich  Delitzsch  connects  it  with  the  Assyrian, 
hambakuku,  a  certain  garden  plant,  and  prefers  the 
vocalization  P^psn.  This  derivation  is  made  more  possi- 
ble by  the  Septuagint  form  of  the  name  'Afi^axoox  or 
"A/x,3axoofj..  In  the  Vulgate  it  is  Habacuc.  The  English 
follows  the  Hebrew  form  plp3n. 

II.  Date  and  Composition.  The  book  bears  no  date 
but  it  was  evidently  written  during  the  reign  of  Jehoia- 
kim  in  Judah  (608-597  B.C.)  Hab.  1:5-6  belongs  just 
before  the  conquests  of  the  Chaldeans.  This  began  in 
606  B.C.  when  they  conquered  Xineveh,  and  was  com- 
pleted in  604  B.C.  when  they  gained  the  supremacy 
of  Western  Asia  by  the  victory  over  the  Egyptians  at 
Carchemish.  In  601-600  the  Chaldeans  invaded  Judah. 
Hence  the  book  may  be  dated  608-600  B.C. 

Since  Hab.  1 :  5-6  implies  a  date  before  the  rise  of 
the  Chaldeans  while  Hab.  1:13-16;  2:8a;  10,  17  look 
upon  their  conquests  as  past,  Giesebrecht  and  Well- 
hausen  consider  1:5-11  a  once  independent  prophecy 
older  than  the  remainder  of  chapters  1  and  2.  Stade 
and  Kuenen  think  2 :  9-20  inapplicable  to  the  Chaldeans 
and  from  a  later  hand.  Wellhausen  opposes  this  con- 
tention. Many  critics  look  upon  chapter  3  as  a  Psalm 
taken  from  some  liturgical  collection  but  not  the  work 


THE    T^YELYE— HABAKKUK  235 

of  Habakkuk,  their  chief  argiunent  ])eing  that  it  fails 
to  allude  to  the  circumstances  of  Ilabakkuk's  age. 

Answer.— 1.  The  presumption  is  that  an  author  wrote 
all  the  work  which  bears  his  name,  unless  there  be  strong 
evidence  to  the  contrary.  In  this  case  such  evidence 
is  lacking.  It  is  unreasonable  to  require  proof  of  the 
genuineness  of  every  part  of  a  book. 

2.  Since  we  do  not  know  positively  the  exact  time 
of  Habakkuk  nor  the  history  of  his  time  in  detail,  the 
assumption  that  certain  parts  of  the  book  do  not  reflect 
the  conditions  of  the  age  is  premature. 

3.  The  Psalm  contained  in  chapter  3  need  not  have 
been  occasioned  by  the  same  events  as  the  prophecy. 
It  is  headed  "  A  Prayer  of  Habakkuk." 

III.  Author.  Habakkuk  prophesied  in  the  king- 
dom of  Judah  during  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim  (608-59? 
B.C.) .  Some  have  concluded  from  the  liturgical  arrange- 
ment of  the  Psalm  in  chapter  3  that  he  was  a  Levite 
and  a  member  of  the  temple  choir.  Such  a  conclusion 
lacks  proof.  He  was  a  contemporary  of  Jeremiah,  whose 
ministry  however  was  much  longer  and  more  influential. 

lY.  Theme.  The  wickedness  of  Israel  is  revealed 
to  the  prophet  and  their  future  overthrow  by  the  Chal- 
deans. The  even  greater  wickedness  of  the  Chaldeans 
is  described  and  their  final  doom  therefor.  The  majesty 
of  God  is  praised  in  song.  Habakkuk  differs  from  Jere- 
miah in  depicting  the  sin  and  punishment  of  the 
Chaldeans  as  Avell  as  those  of  Judah. 

V.     Divisions. 

1.  Judgment  upon  Judah  and  the  Chaldeans.  Chap- 
ters 1-2. 

2.  Psalm  of  Faith.     Chapter  3, 


236     OLD    TESTAMEXT    IXTEODUCTIOX 


(9)   Zeplianiah 

I.  Name.     The  book  is  named  from  its  author  n^JDV 

T  :  —  ■ 

meaning  "  He  whom  Jehovah  has  hidden  or  protected/' 
It  was  borne  by  three  other  persons  in  Old  Testament 
history. (1  Chron.  6:36-38;  Jer.  21:1;  Zech.  6:10). 
In  the  Septuagint  the  word  has  the  form  Joc'ovf'a?  and 
in  the  Vulgate  Sophonias.  The  English  form  is  derived 
from  the  Hebrew. 

II.  Date.  The  statement  of  the  superscription  which 
assigns  this  book  to  the  reign  of  Josiah  (640-609  B.C.) 
is  disputed  only  by  Konig,  who  admits  the  genuineness 
of  the  entire  prophecy  but  assigns  it  to  the  decade  after 
the  death  of  Josiah.  The  majority  of  critics  agree  in 
placing  the  book  before  the  reformation  instituted  by 
Josiah  in  621  B.C.  The  condition  of  religion  and  morals 
reflected  in  1 : 4-6,  8-9,  12  and  3 : 1-3,  7  shows  that  the 
reformation  had  not  yet  taken  place.  ^lany  suppose 
that  the  prophet's  allusion  to  an  approaching  foe  refers 
to  the  Scythians  who  according  to  Herodotus  invaded 
western  Asia  about  this  time.  It  was  perhaps  in  626 
B.C.  that  they  passed  down  the  Philistine  coast.  This 
would  give  Zephaniah  a  date  about  626-621  B.C. 

III.  Composition.  Some  portions  of  chapters  2  and 
3  are  denied  to  Zephaniah  by  certain  critics  though  there 
is  a  noticeable  lack  of  agreement  in  their  conclusions. 
Kuenen  accepts  all  but  3 :  14-20  which  he  considers  a 
post-exilic  addition  because  of  its  differences  in  tone 
and  situation.  Stade  and  ^ellhausen  reject  all  of  chap- 
ter 3  and  certain  verses  of  chapter  2  (1-3,  8-11).  G.  A. 
Smith  accepts  all  of  chapter  2  except  verses  8-11,  re- 


THE   TWELVE— ZEPHANIAH  23? 

arranges  3 : 1-13  and  assigns  3 :  14-20  to  the  end  of  the 
Exile  or  the  period  of  the  restoration.  Driver  is  in 
doubt  concerning  3 :  14-20  though  he  does  not  consider 
it  impossible  that  Zephaniah  wrote  it. 

The  only  approach  to  unanimity  concerns  3 :  14-20. 
An  unprejudiced  reading  of  the  book  will  show  that 
this  is  an  appropriate  climax  of  the  prophecy.  Judg- 
ment is  pronounced  upon  Judah  and  Jerusalem.  In 
3 :  11-13  they  are  represented  as  repenting  and  receiv- 
ing the  pardon  of  God.  The  promises  of  blessing  in 
3 :  14-20  follow  naturally.  While  their  tone  is  more 
exalted  than  that  of  the  remainder  of  the  book,  it  is 
Justified  by  the  nature  of  the  subject  and  does  not  require 
the  supposition  of  another  author  or  another  time.  The 
period  of  the  restoration  was  present  to  Zephaniah  by 
his  prophetic  insight. 

IV.  Author.  Zephaniah  is  said  to  have  been  the 
son  of  Cushi  the  son  of  Gedaliah,  the  son  of  Amariah 
the  son  of  Hizkiah  (1:1).  This  Hizkiah  or  Hezekiah 
is  plausibly  supposed  by  many  to  be  the  king  of  that 
name  who  reigned  726-697  B.C.  If  so  Amariah  was 
a  younger  brother  of  Manasseh,  the  successor  of  Hez- 
ekiah. Abundant  time  is  allowed  between  the  accession 
of  Manasseh  (697  B.C.)  and  the  year  626  B.C.  for  the 
generations  mentioned  in  Zephaniah.  If  the  Hezekiah 
in  Zephaniah's  ancestry  be  not  King  Hezekiah,  we  have 
no  sufficient  explanation  of  the  prophet's  departing 
from  the  usual  custom  of  mentioning  only  the  father 
in  his  superscription.  If  the  supposition  be  true,  this 
is  explained  as  well  as  his  mention  of  the  king's  chil- 
dren (1:8).  Zephaniah  was  a  young  man  of  about 
Josiah's  age  in  whose  reign  he  prophesied.  From  his 
kinship  as  well  as  his  office,  he  was  probably  intimate 


238     OLD    TESTAME:NtT    IN^TEODLX^TIOX 

with  the  king,  and  the  reforms  which  Josiah  instituted 
even  before  621  B.C.  (11  Chron.  34:3-7)  may  have 
been  urged  by  him.  Zephaniah's  ministry  began  about 
the  same  time  as  that  of  Jeremiah  but  lasted  only  a 
short  time  (626-621  B.C.).  He  undoubtedly  lived  in 
Jerusalem. 

IV.  Theme.  Zephaniah  is  especially  concerned  with 
the  approaching  judgment  upon  Judah  for  their  sins 
although  he  foretells  also  the  divine  judgments  upon 
the  surrounding  nations — Philistia,  Moab,  Amnion, 
Ethiopia  and  Assyria.  His  description  of  the  day  of 
wrath  which  occasioned  the  great  medieval  hymn,  Dies 
Irae,  is  as  terrible  as  any  in  the  Old  Testament.  On 
the  other  hand  his  closing  passage  regarding  the  bless- 
ings of  the  restored  Jerusalem  is  unsurpassed  for  gentle- 
ness and  beauty  (notice  especially  3:  16-17). 

V.  Divisions. 

1.  Judgment  upon  Judah.     Chapter  1. 

2.  Judgment  upon  the  nations.     2  :  1  to  3  :  18. 

3.  Deliverance  for  Judah.     3 :  9-20, 


THE    TWELVE— HAGGAI  230 


(10)  Haggai 

I.  Name.  The  book  is  named  from  its  author  ^3n 
meaning  "festal,"  possibly  because  he  was  born  on  a 
festival  day.  The  form  of  the  name  in  the  Septuagint 
is  ^AYyaio<i  and  in  the  Vulgate  Aggaeus.  The  English 
form  follows  the  Hebrew. 

II.  Composition.  That  the  entire  book  was  written 
by  Haggai  has  scarcely  been  questioned.  Even  so  radi- 
cal a  critic  as  Cornill  thinks  that  the  objections  to  1 :  13 
and  2 :  20-23  are  insufficient  and  says  that  the  book 
corresponds  fully  to  the  report  of  the  work  of  Haggai 
in  Ezra  5 :  1  and  6 :  14. 

III.  Date.  The  date  of  the  book  is  universally 
conceded  to  have  been  520  B.C.  This  date  is  derived 
from  the  precise  statement  of  the  prophet  who  mentions 
three  different  days  on  which  he  received  the  word  of 
Jehovah,  all  in  the  second  year  of  Darius.  From  the 
contents  of  the  book  this  Darius  was  evidently  Darius 
Hystaspis,  who  reigned  521-485  B.C.  Thus  Haggai's 
prophecies  were  given  from  September  to  December 
520  B.C. 

IV.  Author.  Scarcely  anything  concerning  the  life 
of  Haggai  is  known.  It  has  been  conjectured  by  Ewald 
from  2 :  3  that  he  had  seen  the  Solomonic  temple  before 
the  Exile  and  Baudissin  agrees  that  this  supposition  of 
the  great  age  of  the  prophet  would  account  for  the  sim- 
plicity of  his  style.  Such  a  theory  is  plausible  though 
2 :  3  gives  it  very  little  confirmation.  Zechariah  was  a 
contemporary  of  Haggai  and  they  labored  together  in 
encouraging  the  people  to  rebuild  the  temple.     Zechariah 


240     OLD    TESTAMEXT    IXTEODUCTIOX 

probably  outlived  Haggai.  According  to  the  Talmud 
Haggai,  Zechariah  and  Malachi  were  members  of  the 
Great  SjTiagogue. 

V.  History.  The  Jews  returned  from  the  Exile  by 
the  decree  of  C}tus  in  536  B.C.  They  built  the  altar 
of  God,  offered  sacrifices  (Ezra  3:2-6;  Hag.  2:14), 
and  made  preparations  to  build  the  temple  (Ezra.  3:  7- 
13).  Immediately  they  encountered  the  opposition  of 
the  Samaritans,  who,  when  refused  the  privilege  of  tak- 
ing part  in  the  work,  complained  of  the  Jews  to  Cyrus 
and  Artaxeres  and  succeeded  in  hindering  them  (Ezra  4) 
until  the  reign  of  Darius.  Faintheartedness  and  indif- 
ference concerning  the  work  of  rebuilding  the  temple 
arose  among  the  Jews.  The}^  built  ceiled  houses  for 
themselves  but  the  house  of  God  was  still  waste.  AMien 
Darius  came  to  the  throne  (521  B.C.)  he  had  to  meet 
two  revolts  of  Babylon.  This  condition  of  affairs 
diverted  his  attention  from  distant  Jerusalem.  The 
decree  of  C}tus  remained  unrepealed.  Accordingly, 
Haggai  and  Zechariah  urged  Zerubbabel,  the  governor 
of  Judah  and  Davidic  heir  to  the  throne,  and  Joshua 
the  high-priest  to  continue  the  building  (Ezra  3:1-2). 
Their  work  was  successful.  A  new  beginning  was  made 
and  in  four  years  and  a  half  the  temple  was  finished 
(Ezra  6:15).  The  prophecies  of  Haggai  are  con- 
fined to  this  one  purpose  of  encouraging  the  building  of 
the  temple. 

V.    Divisions. 

1.  Prophecy  on  first  day  of  sixth  month.     Chapter  1. 

2.  Prophecy  on  twenty-first  day  of  seventh  month. 
2 : 1-9. 

3.  Two  prophecies  on  twenty-fourth  day  of  ninth 
month.     2:10-23. 


THE    TWELVE— ZECHARIAH  241 


(11)  ZecJiaridK 

I.  Name.  The  book  is  named  from  its  author  nn2t 
meaning  "whom  Jehovah  hath  remembered."  It  was 
a  very  common  name  among  the  Jews  being  borne  by 
no  less  than  thirty  other  characters  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. In  the  Septuagint  the  form  is  Za^^apia<;  and 
in  the  Ynlgate  Zacharias.  The  English  form  nearly 
reproduces  the  Hebrew. 

II.  Composition  and  Date. 

A.  Critical  Opinion.  That  Zechariah  was  the  author 
of  chapters  1  to  8  is  universally  conceded.  The  genuine- 
ness of  chapters  9-14  is  however  denied  by  the  large 
majority  of  critics.  These  chapters  together  with  the 
short  book  of  Malachi  are  said  by  some  to  have  been 
three  anonymous  sections  which  were  added  to  the  last 
of  the  Prophets.  In  defense  of  this  view  the  similarity 
of  the  titles  (Zech.  9:1;  12 : 1  and  Mai  1:1)  is  men- 
tioned. Others  think  that  the  author  of  chapters  9-11 
and  possibly  also  of  chapters  12-14  was  the  Zechariah 
the  son  of  Jeberechiah  who  was  a  contemporary  of 
Isaiah  (Is.  8:2)  and  that  because  of  the  similarity 
of  name,  his  writings  were  added  by  the  editor  of  the 
Minor  Prophets  to  those  of  the  post-exilic  Zechariah, 
the  son  of  Berechiah,  the  son  of  Iddo. 

There  is  a  radical  difference  among  critics  concern- 
ing the  date  and  composition  of  chapters  9-14.  With 
allowances  for  minor  variations  the  two  views  may  be 
summed  up  as  follows : 

1.  Certain  critics  such  as  Baudissin  and  Strack  still 
consider  these  chapters  to  be  pre-exilic,  chapters  9-11 


242      OLD    TESTAMENT    IXTIiODUCTiON 

with  possibly  13 :  T-9  belonging  to  the  end  of  the  reign 
of  Jeroboam  II  in  the  early  part  of  Isaiah's  ministry 
in  Judah  (Isa.  8:2)  while  chapters  12-14  possibly 
excepting  13 :  7-9  were  composed  in  the  reign  of  Jehoia- 
kim,  Jehoiachin  or  Zedekiah.  The  arguments  for  this 
view  of  chapters  9-11  are: — 

(a)  The  mention  of  Hadrach,  Damascus  and  Haniath 
as  independent  countries  (9:  1-2)  marks  a  time  before 
the  conquest  of  those  countries  by  Tiglath-Pileser  in 
733  B.C. 

(b)  The  brotherhood  between  Judah  and  Israel 
(11:14)  implies  a  time  before  the  alliance  of  Israel 
and  Syria  against  Judah  in  the  reign  of  Ahaz. 

(c)  The  mention  of  Egypt  and  Assyria  together 
(Zech.  10:10-11)  as  in  Hosea  (7:11;  9:3;  11:11; 
12  :  1)  and  Isaiah  (7 :  18 ;  11 :  11)  implies  a  time  before 
the  Exile. 

(d)  The  reference  to  teraphim  and  diviners  (Zech. 
10 : 1-4)  points  to  a  pre-exilic  date. 

(e)  The  adherents  of  this  view  consider  the  refer- 
ence to  Javan  (Zech.  9 :  13)  a  corruption  of  the  text. 

Their  arguments  concerning  the  date  of  chapters  12- 
14  are: 

(a)  The  northern  kingdom  is  not  mentioned  but 
Judah  is  represented  as  still  ruled  by  the  house  of  David 
(Zech.  12:7,  10,  12;  13:1). 

(b)  Idols  are  still  worshipped  (Zech.  13:2). 

(c)  False  prophets  are  in  the  land  (Zech.  13:2-6). 

(d)  "  The  mourning  of  Hadadrimmon  in  the  val- 
ley of  Megiddon "  refers  to  the  mourning  for  King 
Josiah     (II   Chron.   35:25). 

2.  Other  critics  such  as  Nowack  and  Driver  assign 
chapters  9-14  to  a  post-exilic  date. 


THE    TWELVE— ZECHAKIAH  243 

Nowack  divides  these  chapters  into  four  parts. 

(a)  He  assigns  9  :  (10 :  If )  10 :  3  to  11 :  3  to  a  time 
subsequent  to  Alexander  the  Great  because  of  the  men- 
tion of  "the  sons  of  Javan"  (9: 13). 

(b)  Concerning  11:4-17  and  13 :  7-9  he  is  somewhat 
in  doubt  but  considers  it  certainly  post-exilic  because 
of  the  dependence  of  11 :  16  on  Ezek.  34. 

(c)  He  says  that  12:1  to  13:6  "lie  upon  the  line 
of  development  whose  culmination  is  indicated  in  views 
like  those  expressed  in  1  Mace.  4:46;  9:27;  14:41" 
(Hastings  B.  D.  Vol.  lY.  p.  969).  The  arguments  for 
this  are  the  dependence  of  the  campaign  of  the  heathen 
against  Jerusalem  upon  Ezek.  38,  the  mention  of  the 
houses  of  David  and  Levi  together  (12:12)  and  the 
hostility  to  prophecy  (13:2-6). 

(d)  Chapter  14  is  assigned  to  a  late  post-exilic  period 
because  of  its  relation  to  Ezek.  38,  because  verse  11  is 
said  to  be  dependent  upon  Mai.  4 :  6  and  because  of 
the  ideas  expressed  in  verses  16  and  20. 

Driver  places  Zech.  9-11  and  13:7-9  "after  the 
overthrow  of  the  Persian  empire  at  Issus  by  Alexander 
the  Great/'  (B.C.  333)  chiefly  because  Greece  is  men- 
tioned as  a  world-power  and  Israel's  most  important 
antagonist.  In  regard  to  chapters  12-14  (omitting 
13:7-9)  Driver  is  not  so  certain  though  he  suggests 
the  periods  between  518  and  458  B.C.  and  432  and  300 
B.C.  where  Jewish  history  is  but  little  knowTi. 

In  addition  to  these  arguments  against  the  genuine- 
ness of  chapters  9-14  it  is  contended  that  their  style  dif- 
fers widely  from  that  of  chapters  1-8.  In  particular 
Driver  mentions  the  fact  that  the  Deutero-Zechariah 
uses  Zechariah's  favorite  expression,  "  thus  saith  the 
Lord"  only  once,  while  the  expression  "in  that  day," 


24^  OLD  TESTAMENT  IXTEODUCTION 

found  18  times  in  chapters  12-14,  occnrs  onty  three 
times  in  chapters  1-8  and  only  twice  in  chapters  9-11. 
Chapters  1-8  are  nnpoetical  in  form  while  chapters  9-14 
are  poetical  and  abound  in  parallelism. 

B.  Arguments  for  Unity  of  the  l>ool\ 

(a)  It  is  not  necessary  to  devote  much  attention  to 
the  work  of  refuting  the  older  view  of  the  pre-exilic 
date,  for  the  weight  of  authority  favors  the  later  date 
and  the  arguments  cited  from  N"owack  and  Driver  suf- 
fice to  indicate  a  time  after  the  Exile.  The  references 
to  Hadrach,  Damascus,  and  Hamath  (9:1-2)  and  the 
cities  of  Phenicia  are  in  a  prophecy  of  the  invasion 
of  Alexander  the  Great  in  333  B.C.  as  the  allusion  to 
Greece  shows  (9  :  13).  Judah  and  Israel  were  considered 
as  reunited  after  the  Exile,  for  many  of  the  northern 
kingdom  returned  with  Judah  and  the  sin-offering  was 
made  for  all  the  twelve  tribes  (Ezra  6:17;  8:35). 
The  house  of  Israel  and  the  house  of  Judah  are  men- 
tioned separately  even  in  the  portion  of  the  book  acknowl- 
edged as  post-exilic  (Zech.  8:13).  The  name  Assyria 
is  used  after  the  Exile  either  as  a  geographical  designa- 
tion (Ezra  6:22)  or,  as  Nowack  suggests,  as  a  name 
for  Syria.  Our  knowledge  of  the  times  immediately 
after  the  return  from  the  Exile  do  not  justify  the  state- 
ment that  teraphim,  idols  and  false  prophets  were 
unknown.  The  references  to  the  supremacy  of  the 
house  of  David  are  all  predictive  (Zech.  12:  7,  10,  12; 
13:1).  "The  mourning  of  Hadadrimmon "  is  not 
mentioned  as  a  recent  occurrence  but  as  a  well  known 
event  in  the  history  of  the  people  to  which  Jeremiah 
and  the  Chronicler  refer  (II  Chron.  35:  25).  Further- 
more if  chapters  9-14  were  composed  before  the  time 
of  the  Exile,  why  do  they  say  nothing  of  the  Chaldeans 


THE    TWELVE— ZECITARIAH  245 

and  their  invasion  of  Judah,  a  subject  which  has  so 
large  a  place  in  the  writings  of  the  pre-exilic  Prophets  ? 

(b)  While  the  arguments  of  Nowack  and  Driver  are 
sufficient  to  prove  the  post-exilic  date,  they  do  not  prove 
a  date  after  Zechariah.  The  dependence  upon  Ezekiel 
is  quite  as  natural  if  Zechariah  wrote  these  chapters 
as  on  the  theory  of  a  later  date.  Nor  is  it  necessary 
to  place  chapters  9-11  after  the  invasion  of  Alexander 
in  333  B.C.  because  of  the  reference  to  Javan  (Zech. 
9:13).  The  passage  is  predictive  and  not  historical. 
Javan  was  known  to  Israel  long  before  Zechariah's 
time  (Gen.  10:2,  4;  Isa  66:19;  Ezek.  27:13).  And 
if  we  suppose  that  Zechariah  wrote  this  prophecy  thirty 
or  forty  years  after  those  of  chapters  1-8,  we  are  brought 
to  a  time  when  the  military  prestige  of  Javan  or  Greece 
must  have  been  known  throughout  the  Persian  empire. 
The  defeat  of  Darius  at  Marathon  in  490  B.C.  and  of 
the  enormous  armies  of  Xerxes  at  Thermopylae  in 
480  B.C.  as  well  as  the  naval  defeats  at  Salamis  (480 
B.C.),  Plataea  and  Mycale  (479  B.C.)  were  certainly 
calculated  to  make  Greece  a  world-power  in  the  view 
of  the  prophet. 

(c)  The  differences  in  style  between  chapters  1-8 
and  9-14  are  explained  by  the  difference  of  subject  and 
the  probable  interval  of  thirty  or  forty  years  in  the 
prophet's  life.  The  predictions  of  chapters  9-14  require 
a  different  style  from  the  visions  of  chapters  1-8.  The 
early  part  of  the  book  was  meant  to  encourage  Israel 
while  building  the  temple  but  the  latter  part  consists 
of  woes  upon  the  enemies  of  God's  people  and  promises 
of  blessing  upon  Israel.  Therefore  the  reassuring 
"thus  saith  the  Lord"  is  appropriate  to  the  early  but 
pot  to  the  later  part  of  the  book.     The  characteristic 


246    OLD  testa:\iext  ixteoduction- 

mark  of  prediction  "  in  that  day  "  is  rare  in  the  early 
chapters  because  prediction  is  rare  and  common  near 
the  end  of  the  book  because  that  part  is  almost  entirely 
predictive. 

We  would  not  expect  many  literary  marks  of  a  com- 
mon authorship  between  prophecies  so  totally  different 
in  occasion  and  purpose — one  uttered  by  a  young  and 
the  other  by  an  old  man.    Yet  there  are  a  few. 

Chapter     9:9 compare Chapter  2:10 

9:10 '^      Hag.  2:22 

"         13:9 «      Chapter  8:8 

Even  more  noteworthy  is  the  usage  of  the  Kal  of  n^^^ 
in  the  passive  sense.  This  is  found  only  three  times 
outside  of  Zechariah  (Ps.  125:1;  Jer.  17:25;  Isa. 
K] :  20)  but  it  occurs  twice  in  the  undisputed  part  of  the 
book  (2:8  and  7:7)  and  tmce  in  the  disputed  part 
(12:6  and  14:10).  The  expression  n;5^l  inj?^  is  also 
found  in  both  sections  of  the  prophecy  (7 :  14  and  9:8). 

III.  History  (see  Haggai). 

IV.  Author.  Zechariah  was  the  son  of  Berechiah, 
the  son  of  Iddo  (1:1).  The  grandfather,  Iddo,  is 
mentioned  because  he  was  distinguished  as  one  of  the 
leaders  of  the  Levites  who  returned  with  Zerubbabel 
and  Joshua  from  exile  (Neh.  12 :  1,  4,  7).  If  so  Zecha- 
riah was  himself  a  priest  and  identical  with  the  Zecha- 
riah of  Xeh.  12 :  16.  Iddo  was  probably  an  elderly 
man  and  Zechariah  a  child  when  they  returned  to  Jeru- 
salem in  536  B.C.  Zechariah  was  a  young  man  when 
he  gave  his  first  prophecy  in  the  second  year  of  Darius 
(520  B.C.)  two  months  after  the  first  prophecy  of 
Haggai.  Many  think  that  Zech.  2 : 4  refers  to^  the 
prophet's  youth.  After  three  months  Zechariah  received 


THE    TWELVE— ZECHAEIAH  247 

another  revelation  (1:7)  and  a  third  over  two  years 
later  (7:1).  Thus  the  certain  dates  of  his  ministry 
are  520-518  B.C.  It  seems  probable  from  the  refer- 
ence to  Javan  or  Greece  that  he  made  the  prophecies 
of  chapters  8-14  much  later,  possibly  490-475  B.C.  This 
theory  would  be  possible,  if  Zechariah  lived  to  be  seventy 
years  old  (545-475  B.C.)  and  if  his  ministry  extended 
over  forty-five  years  (520-475  B.C.).  In  the  beginning 
of  his  ministry  Haggai  was  his  contemporary  prophet. 
Joshua  was  the  high-priest  and  Zerubbabel  the  governor 
in  his  time.  According  to  the  Talmud,  Zechariah  was 
a  member  of  the  Great  Synagogue. 
V.     Divisions. 

1.  Visions  to  encourage  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple. 
Chapters  1-6. 

2.  Mission  of  inquiry  concerning  the  continuance  of 
the  fasts  commemorating  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
Chapters  7-8. 

3.  Predictions,  largely  symbolical,  concerning  the 
future  of  Israel  and  their  enemies.     Chapters  9-14. 


248     OLD    TESTAMEXT    IXTEODUCTIOX 


(12)  MalacU 

I.  Name.  The  book  is  named  from  its  author  ^3N*^» 
meaning  ^^my  messenger  ^^  (Jehovah's  messenger). 
Others  think  it  an  abbreviated  form  of  ns2K!?D  "  mes- 

T  •  T  :  — 

senger  of  Jehovah/'  Many  critics  following  the  Septua- 
gint  consider  it  a  common  noun.  The  Targum  of 
Jonathan  ben-Uzziel  adds  "  whose  name  is  called 
Ezra  the  scribe."  According  to  the  critical  view  the 
book  was  orginally  anonymous  but  the  title  and  name 
(1:1)  were  added  by  the  editor  of  the  Minor  Prophets 
by  reference  to  Mai.  3:1.  The  title  in  the  Septuagint 
is  Malayia<i  and  in  the  Vulgate  Malachias.  The  Eng- 
lish form  of  the  name  follows  the  Hebrew.  The  fact 
that  every  other  book  of  the  Minor  Prophets  opens  with 
the  name  of  its  author  makes  it  probable  that  ]\Ialachi 
is  a  proper  name  and  not  a  mere  title  of  the  prophet. 

II.  Date.  Although  no  date  is  given  the  approxi- 
mate time  of  the  book  is  evident.  The  temple  was  built 
and  offerings  were  made  (1 :  7,  10;  3 : 1).  A  Persian 
governor  ruled  in  Jerusalem  (1:8).  Hence  we  look 
for  a  time  after  Haggai  and  Zechariah.  The  sins 
against  which  Malachi  inveighs  are  similar  to  those 
in  the  days  of  Ezra  and  Xehemiah  (compare  Mai.  2  :  10- 
16  with  Ezra  9:2;  10:3,  16-44;  Xeh.  10:30;  13:  23- 
31  and  Mai.  3:7-12  with  A^eh.  10:32-39;  13:4-14). 
Hence  it  is  generally  agreed  that  Malachi  prophesied 
during  the  same  period.  Wliether  he  did  so  before  the 
arrival  of  Ezra  in  Jerusalem  (458  B.C.)  or  about 
the  time  of  Xehemiah's  second  visit  (432  B.C.)  there 
is  much  difference  of  opinion.     The  statement  of  1 : 8 


THE     TWELA^E— MxVLACHI  249 

makes  it  improbable  that  Neliemiah  was  governor 
at  the  time  the  prophet  wrote.  The  theory  that  the  book 
was  written  during  the  absence  of  Nehemiah  at  Susa 
in  433-432  is  the  most  probable.  According  to  the 
Talmud  Malachi  was  a  member  of  the  Great  Syna- 
gogue. 

III.  Composition.  The  genuineness  of  the  book  is 
universally  conceded.  Many  critics  however  consider 
the  title  in  1 : 1  a  later  addition.  The  similarity  of  the 
titles  in  Zech.  9 :  1 ;  12 : 1  and  Mai.  1 : 1  has  given  sup- 
port  to  the  theory  that  Zech.  9-11,  Zech.  12-14  and  Mala- 
chi were  originally  three  independent  anonymous  prophe- 
cies. The  editor  of  the  Minor  Prophets  is  said  to  have 
placed  the  title,  "burden  of  the  word  of  Jehovah" 
at  the  head  of  Zech.  12-14  and  of  the  book  of  Malachi 
in  imitation  of  Zech.  9 : 1.  He  also  joined  the  first 
two  sections  to  Zechariah  and  made  the  third  indepen- 
dent in  order  to  obtain  the  desired  number,  twelve,  in 
the  Minor  Prophets,  and  added  the  name  Malachi  in  1 : 1 
in  imitation  of  3:1.  The  Septuagint  and  Targum  of 
Jonathan  ben-IJzziel  make  Malachi  in  1:1  a  common 
noun  and  the  latter  adds  "  whose  name  is  called  Ezra 
the  scribe."  The  critical  theory  is  too  fanciful  to 
require  refutation.  The  name  Malachi  is  properly 
formed  like  Abi  for  Abijah  (II  Kings  18:2).  It 
is  more  natural  to  consider  Mai.  3:1a  play  upon  the 
prophet's  name  than  Mai.  1 : 1  an  imitation  of  Mai. 
3 :  1.  The  title,  "  Burden  of  the  word  of  Jehovah," 
may  well  have  been  placed  in  Mai.  1 :  1  by  the  prophet 
himself  in  imitation  of  his  predecessor,  Zechariah.  The 
Septuagint  evidently  was  not  sure  that  Malachi  (1:1) 
was  a  common  noun  for  it  gave  the  proper  name  in  the 
title.     The    tradition    that    Ezra   wrote    the    book    is 


250      OLD    TESTAMEXT    IXTEODUCTIOX 

unlikely;  for  the  book  of  Ezra  bears  no  traces  of  his 
having  done  so. 
IV.  Divisions. 

1.  The  apostasy  of  Israel  described.     Chapters  1-2. 

2.  Judgment  for  the  sinners  and  blessings  for  the 
penitent.     Chapters  3-4. 


THIRD   DIVISION 

KETHUBIM 
Section  I.     Poetical  Books 

PRELIMINARY.       HEBREW   POETRY 

I.  Spirit.  The  Hebrew  language  is  peculiarly 
adapted  to  be  the  vehicle  of  poetic  expression.  Its  most 
prominent  part  of  speech  is  the  verb,  the  word  of  action. 
A  large  majority  of  its  words  are  based  upon  metaphors 
and  the  simple  structure  of  its  vocabulary  and  its  gram- 
mar lends  itself  to  paronomasia  and  striking  antithesis. 
Furthermore  the  great  variety  of  landscape  in  the  small 
land  of  Palestine  and  the  emotional  and  even  rapturous 
character  of  the  people  furnished  at  once  the  occasion 
and  the  power  for  the  construction  of  poetry. 

The  poetry  of  the  Old  Testament  is  not  preeminently 
descriptive  of  nature  though  incidentally  this  finds  a 
large  place  in  it.  Nor  is  it  preeminently  individual  or 
national,  though  these  elements  also  are  recognized. 
It  is  above  all  things  religious.  The  spiritual  God  who 
punishes  the  wicked,  pities  the  unfortunate,  and  keeps 
covenant  with  His  people  is  the  constant  factor  in 
Hebrew  poetry.  One  can  feel  His  divine  presence 
throbbing  in  it  all.  Nature,  history  and  individual 
experience  are  full  of  God.  Hence  this  poetry  can  be 
appreciated  fully  only  by  the  devout  soul.  As  Herder 
expresses  it:  "As  the  heaven  pictures  itself  only  in 
the  clear  calm  sea,  so  we  see  the  gentle  wave  of  emotion 

251 


252       OLD    TESTAMENT    IXTEODUCTIOX 

describe  its  circles  only  in  the  tranquil  soul."  (Spirit 
of  Hebrew  Poetry,  Vol.  II  p.  246).  It  is  this  religious 
characteristic  which  gives  unity  to  Hebrew  poetry  and 
makes  it  interesting  to  all  ages.  Although  the  allusions 
to  songs  of  the  vintage  (Isa.  16:10)  wedding  songs 
(Ps.  78  :  63)  and  the  inscriptions  of  certain  Psalms  (e.g. 
Ps.  22:1)  indicate  that  secular  poetry  was  common 
among  the  Hebrews,  it  has  no  place  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. 

II.  Extent  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  difficult  to 
set  bounds  to  the  poetic  element  of  the  Hebrew  scrip- 
tures. The  repetition  and  antithesis  which  are  the 
foundation  of  parallelism,  are  characteristic  of  all 
Hebrew  writing.  In  some  places  they  are  more  marked 
than  in  others.  Thus  in  the  words  of  Adam  at  the 
creation  of  Eve  (Gen.  2:  23)  and  of  God  in  condemna- 
tion of  Cain  (Gen.  4: 10-11)  parallelism  is  unmistake- 
able. 

Occasional  songs  are  introduced  in  the  historical 
books : 

The  Song  of  the  Sword  (Lam- 

ech)  Gen.  4 :  23-24. 

The  Blessing  of  Jacob Gen.  49 : 1-27. 

The  Song  of  Moses Ex.  15  :  1-18. 

The  Song  of  the  Well Num.  21 :  17-18. 

The  Song  of  the  War-Flame. .  .  Num.  21 :  17-30. 

The  Farewell  Song  of  Moses. .  .  Deut.  32 : 1-43. 

The  Song  of  Deborah Judges  5. 

The  Song  of  Hannah I  Sam.  2 : 1-10. 

The   Song   of  the   Bow    (Saul 

and   Jonathan) II  Sam.  1 :  17-27. 

The  Last  Words  of  David II  Sam.  23 : 1-7. 


PEELIMIXARY.  HEBREW  TOETRY   253 

The  books  which  are  entirely  in  the  poetic  form  are 
Psalms,  Proverbs,  Job  (excepting  the  prologue  and 
epilogue),  Song  of  Solomon  and  Lamentations.  Eccle- 
siastes  is  similar  in  many  parts  to  the  poetry  of  Pro- 
verbs. The  books  of  the  prophets  abound  in  parallelism 
and  in  the  more  exalted  portions  may  be  classed  as 
poetry.  The  prayer  of  Jonah  (chapter  2),  the  prayer 
of  Habakkuk  (chapter  3)  and  possibly  Nahum  1:2-8 
are  examples  of  pure  poetry. 

Thus  the  Old  Testament  is  in  marked  contrast  to  the 
New  in  its  large  element  of  poetry.  The  Magnificat  of 
Mary  (Luke  1:46-55),  the  prophecy  of  Zacharias 
(Luke  1:68-77),  the  Beatitudes  (Matt.  5:3-12)  and 
certain  passages  of  Revelation  (4:8,  11 ;  5  :  9-10,  12,  13 ; 
7  :  5-8,  12 ;  11 :  15 ;  15  :  3-4 ;  19  :  1-2,  5,  6-8)  in  the  spirit 
of  Hebrew  poetry  are  the  only  original  poetry  in  the 
New  Testament.  The  quotations  from  Old  Testament 
poetry  and  Paul's  brief  citations  of  the  Greek  poets, 
Aratus  (Acts  17:28b)  and  Callimachus  (Tit.  1:12) 
should  not  be  classed  here.  The  Old  Testament  on  the 
other  hand  is  largely  poetic  either  in  spirit  or  in  form, 
often  in  both. 

III.  Form.  Rhyme  is  not  a  distinguishing  charac- 
teristic of  Hebrew  poetry,  although  something  approach- 
ing it  occurs  occasionally  (Job  10:9-18;  Paslm  6). 
Nor  is  metre  a  mark  of  this  poetry,  although  the  similar- 
ity in  the  length  of  the  lines  and  the  different  system 
of  accents  in  Psalms,  Proverbs  and  Job,  make  the  search 
for  a  metrical  arrangement  attractive. 

The  unit  of  Hebrew  poetry  is  the  line,  which  varies 
in  length  in  different  kinds  of  poetry.  Usually  two  lines 
constitute  a  verse,  which  is  then  called  a  distich. 
Tristichs  are  common  and  even  tetrastichs  and  penta- 


254     OLD    TESTAMEXT    IXTEODUCTIOK 

stichs  occur  (Ps.  27:3-i;  37:7,  1-i,  25,  28,  40).  In 
tetrastichs  the  first  two  and  the  last  two  lines  commonly 
go  together. 

The  uniform  and  essential  feature  of  Hebrew  poetry 
has  been  called  by  Bishop  Lowth  the  "parallelism/' 
After  a  statement  has  been  made  in  the  first  line  of  the 
verse,  it  is  repeated,  enlarged,  or  balanced  by  the  state- 
ments of  the  remaining  line  or  lines.  Thus  parallelism 
is  "  a  manifest  correspondence  both  in  sense  and  rhyth- 
mic expression  between  two  sentences  or  two  sections  of 
a  sentence,  very  much  as  if  it  were  an  utterance  and 
some  intelligent  echo  of  it"  (Drysdale  "Early  Bible 
Songs"  p.  18).  This  arrangement  was  peculiarly 
adapted  to  express  the  emotions  in  times  of  great  feeling 
and  since  the  poetry  consists  much  more  in  the  sense 
than  in  the  sound  of  the  words,  Hebrew  poetry  suffers 
less  than  other  poetry  by  translation. 

Parallelism  is  of  several  different  kinds. 

1.  Synonymous,  in  which  the  second  line  is  a  repeti- 
tion of  the  thought  of  the  first  line  (Gen.  4:  23). 

2.  Antithetic,  in  which  the  second  line  expresses  a 
thought  contrasted  with  that  of  the  first  (Ps.  1:6). 

3.  S}mthetic,  in  which  the  thought  of  the  second  and 
later  lines  enlarges  upon  and  completes  that  of  the  first 
(Ps.  24:9). 

4.  Climactic,  similar  to  synthetic,  in  w^hich  the 
thought  ascends  by  steps  to  a  climax  (Ps.  29 : 1). 

A  larger  division  of  Hebrew  poetry,  which  can  some- 
times be  distinguished,  is  the  stanza  or  strophe.  Usually 
it  is  marked  only  by  a  change  of  thought  as  in  the  four- 
fold division  of  Psalm  2  although  each  strophe  of 
Psalm  46  ends  with  Selah.     In  the  great  majority  of 


PEELIMIXAEY.   HEBREW  POETRY   255 

Psalms,  however,  the  strophes  are  uneven  in  length  and 
often  cannot  be  distinguished  at  all. 

IV.  Kinds.  In  the  proper  sense  of  the  words, 
neither  epic  nor  dramatic  poetry  is  found  in  the  Bible. 
The  action  which  is  essential  to  the  drama  is  not  found 
in  the  poetic  portion  of  the  Book  of  Job  nor  in  the  Song 
of  Songs.  Lyric  and  didactic  poetry,  however,  are  com- 
mon. To  the  former  class  belong  the  occasional  songs 
scattered  throughout  the  historical  and  prophetic  por- 
tions of  the  Old  Testament,  the  Lamentations  of  Jere- 
miah, the  Song  of  Songs  and  most  of  the  Psalms.  The 
books  of  Job,  Proverbs,  and  Ecclesiastes  as  well  as  sev- 
eral of  the  Psalms  are  didactic  poetry. 


PSALMS 

I.  Name.  The  Hebrew  name  of  the  entire  collection 
of  Psalms  was  D^^nn  "iDD  sometimes  shortened  into  D^?Jyi. 
This  word  occurs  in  the  Old  Testament  only  in  the 
forms  n^nn  and  ni-)nri  (Ps.  22:3).  The  feminine 
plural  refers  to  the  subject-matter  of  the  Psalms  and 
the  masculine  to  the  form.  The  Septuagint  translates 
D''^nn  by  WaXfioi  which  in  the  singular  meant  primarily 
the  twanging  with  the  fingers  in  playing  on  a  stringed 
instrument,  then  the  sound  of  the  harp  and  finally  a 
song  sung  to  the  harp.  The  Vulgate  appropriates  the 
Greek  name  (Liber  Psalmorum)  from  which  also  our 
English  name  is  derived.  Individual  Psalms  are  called 
by  several  different  names  and  some  critics  think  that 
ni?Dri  in  Ps.  72 :  20  is  meant  to  be  a  designation  of  the 
entire  collection,  so  far  as  it  was  completed.  This  name 
however  is  too  restricted  for  that  purpose  nor  does  the 
passage  refer  to  all  the  Psalms  before  it. 

II.  Arrangement  and  Divisions.  In  the  Massoretic 
text  there  are  150  Psalms.  The  Septuagint  and  Vulgate 
unite  Psalms  9  and  10,  and  114  and  115,  and  divide 
Psalms  116  and  147.  Psalms  42  and  43  are  counted 
together  in  several  Hebrew  manuscripts.  The  Septua- 
gint adds  another  Psalm  to  the  150  with  the  inscription: 
"  This  Psalm  was  ^\Titten  by  David  outside  of  the 
number  when  he  fought  against  Goliath.'^  It  is 
undoubtedly  spurious. 

266 


PSALMS  257 

The  Psalter  is  arranged  in  five  books,  probably  in 
imitation  of  the  five  books  of  the  Pentateuch.  Each 
books  ends  with  a  doxology  and  Psalm  150  is  the  dox- 
ology  for  the  entire  collection.  This  division  antedates 
the  Septuagint  and  is  indicated  by  headings  in  the 
Hebrew  Bible.    It  is  as  follows : 

Book  1 Psalms  1-41 

''  2 "  42-72 

"  3 "  73-89 

''  4 "  90-106 

"  5 "  107-150 

III.  Authors.  Of  the  150  Psalms,  100  are  assigned 
by  their  inscriptions  to  authors  as  follows: 

David:  Psalms  3-9,  11-32,  34-41,  51-65,  68-70,  86, 
101,  103,  108-110,  122,  124,  131,  133,  138-145  (73  in 
all). 

Sons  of  Korah:  Psalms  42,  44-49,  84-85,  87,  88 
(Psalm  88  is  assigned  to  Heman,  one  of  the  Sons  of 
Korah — 11  in  all). 

Asaph:    Psalms  50,  73-83  (12  in  all). 

Solomon:    Psalms  72,  127. 

Ethan :   Psalm  89. 

Moses:   Psalm  90. 

Three  things  should  be  remembered  concerning  these 
inscriptions. 

1.  They  are  not  a  part  of  the  original  text  of  the 
Psalms.  They  were  however  added  at  a  period  before 
the  Septuagint  as  is  evidenced  by  their  presence  in  that 
version. 

2.  The  names  are  introduced  by  the  preposition  ^ 
instead  of  the  older  genitive  giving  rise  to  discussions 
whether  the  name  is  that  of  the  traditional  author  or 


558     OLD    TESTAME^TT    INTEODUCTION 

of  the  one  to  whom  the  Psalm  is  dedicated.  But  if  the 
preposition  refers  always  to  the  dedication,  we  have  the 
anomalous  condition  of  one  hundred  Psalms  dedicated 
to  certain  Old  Testament  characters  of  which  the 
authorship  is  not  mentioned  in  a  single  case.  In  three 
Psalms  the  name  Jeduthun  is  mentioned  besides  that 
of  the  author  (Psalms  39,  62,  and  77).  In  the  inscrip- 
tions of  several  Davidic  Psalms  (3,  7,  18,  30,  34,  51, 
52,  54,  56,  57,  59,  60,  63,  and  142)  there  is  the  men- 
tion of  some  well-known  occasion  of  David's  life,  indi- 
cating that  the  writer  of  the  inscription  meant  to  give 
the  name  of  the  author  and  the  occasion  of  his  writing 
the  Psalm.  Psalm  18  is  said  to  have  been  composed  by 
David  in  the  inscription  as  well  as  in  II  Sam.  22,  al- 
though in  the  Psalter  the  inscription  is  in?.  If  p 
in  the  inscriptions  of  these  fourteen  Psalms  evidently 
meant  authorship,  the  presumption  is  that  the  meaning 
is  the  same  in  all  cases. 

3.  Since  the  authorship  of  individual  Psalms  is  a 
matter  which  it  is  impossible  to  determine  with  anything 
approaching  certainty,  it  is  best  to  accept  this  very 
ancient  though  uninspired  tradition,  unless  strong  in- 
ternal evidence  is  found  against  it.  In  many  instances 
the  Psalms  agree  with  known  occasions  in  the  life  of 
the  traditional  author.  When  this  is  not  the  case,  it  is 
safe  to  conclude  that  the  Psalm  refers  to  an  occasion 
in  his  life  which  the  brief  records  of  the  historical  books 
do  not  mention.  In  a  few  instances  the  inscription 
should  be  rejected. 

The  traditional  view  that  David  was  the  author  of 
many  Psalms  is  supported  by  the  following  considera- 
tions : 

1.  He  played  upon  the  harp  (I  Sam.  16:  18-23;  II 


PSALMS  259 

Sam.  6:5)  and  is  called  "the  sweet  singer  of  Israel'' 
(II  Sam.  23:1). 

2.  He  composed  certain  songs  (II  Sam.  1 :  17-27;  22: 
1-51;  23:  1-7). 

3.  He  arranged  the  service  of  song  in  the  sanctuary 
(I  Chron.  6  :  31 ;  16  :  7 ;  25  :  1 ;  Ezra  3  :  10 ;  Neh.  12 :  24, 
36,45-46;  Amos  6:5). 

It  is  indeed  extraordinary  if  the  high  musical  reputa- 
tion of  David  rests  upon  no  broader  foundation  than  the 
composition  of  the  three  songs  in  II  Samuel. 

The  Psalms  ascribed  to  the  sons  of  Korah,  to  Asaph, 
to  Heman,  and  to  Ethan  are  24  and  properly  are 
classed  together  since  their  authors  were  associated  with 
the  service  of  song  which  David  established.  Korah 
was  probably  a  descendant  of  the  man  of  that  name 
who  was  swallowed  up  by  the  earth  because  of  rebellion 
(Num.  16:  1)  and  hence  of  Kohath,  one  of  the  three 
sons  of  Levi.  Heman  was  one  of  the  sons  of  Korah, 
Asaph  was  a  descendant  of  Gershom  (I  Chron.  6:39) 
and  Ethan  of  Merari  (I  Chron.  6:44).  Hence  the 
three  sons  of  Levi  were  represented  among  the  temple 
singers  (Ex.  6:16).  Asaph,  Heman  and  Ethan  (who 
was  later  called  Jeduthun)  were  appointed  to  sing  and 
sound  the  cymbals  when  David  brought  up  the  ark  to 
Zion  (I  Chron.  15:16-19)  and  afterwards  to  be  the 
leaders  of  the  orchestra  (I  Chron.  16  :  5,  7,  41-42  ;  25  :  1- 
5).  Many  of  the  descendants  of  Asaph  returned  from 
Babylon  (Ezra  2  :  41 ;  Neh.  7  :  44)  and  took  part  in  the 
laying  of  the  foundation  of  Zerubbabel's  temple  (Ezra 
3  :  10) .  This  long  record  in  connection  with  the  musical 
worship  shows  that  the  ascription  of  Psalms  to  these 
three  singers  and  to  sons  of  Korah  is  reliable. 

There  is  nothing  in  Psalms  72  and  127  which  pre- 


260     OLD    TESTAMEXT    IXTEODUCTION 

eludes  the  possibility  that  Solomon  wrote  them  especially 
in  view  of  his  reputation  as  the  builder  of  the  temple. 
And  though  the  inscription  of  Psalm  90  to  Moses  assigns 
it  to  an  age  long  before  the  greater  part  of  the  Psalter, 
the  majestic  character  of  that  Psalm  is  not  inconsistent 
with  the  style  of  Moses.  He  too  is  known  to  have  been 
a  poet  (Ex.  15;  Deut.  32). 

ly.  Collections.  The  way  in  which  the  Psalter 
took  its  present  form  is  very  difficult  to  discover.  Yet 
from  the  division  into  books,  the  grouping  of  Psalms  by 
certain  authors  and  of  certain  kinds,  and  especially  from 
the  statement  of  Ps.  72 :  20,  it  is  evident  that  several 
earlier  collections  preceded  the  present  one. 

Driver  and  others  have  drawn  attention  to  the  use  of 
the  divine  names  in  the  Psalms.  In  Book  I  Jehovah  is 
found  272  times  and  Elohim  15  times,  and  in  books 
IV  and  V  Jehovah  only  is  found  except  in  Ps.  114:9 
and  five  places  of  Psalm  108  derived  from  Psalms  57 
and  60.  On  the  other  hand  in  Book  II  Jehovah  occurs 
30  times  and  Elohim  164  times  while  in  the  Asaphitic 
Psalms  of  Book  III  (73-83)  Jehovah  is  found  13  times 
and  Elohim  36  times  and  in  Psalms  84-89  Jehovah 
occurs  31  times  and  Elohim  7  times.  This  usage  is 
partly  due  to  authorship  and  partly  to  subject.  David 
commonly  uses  the  name  Jehovah  while  Asaph  and  the 
Sons  of  Korah  use  the  name  Elohim.  It  is  noteworthy 
however  that  in  the  last  two  books  which  are  largely 
liturgical,  the  name  Jehovah  is  used  almost  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  Elohim.  At  any  rate  there  is  nothing  in  these 
facts  which  indicates  a  redaction  of  the  Psalms  to 
introduce  another  divine  name. 
•  Three  collections  can  be  distinguished. 

1.  Since  all  the  Psalms  in  Book  I  are  Davidic  except 


PSALMS  261 

the  introductory  Psalm  I,  the  probahl}^  Davidic  Psalm 
2,  Psalm  10  which  may  have  originally  been  part  of 
Psalm  9,  and  Psalm  33  which  in  the  Septuagint  is 
ascribed  to  David,  it  seems  likely  that  this  book  was 
arranged  for  worship  by  David  himself  or  soon  after  his 
time. 

The  suggestion  of  Ewald  that  originally  Psalms 
51-72  followed  immediately  after  Psalm  41  is  com- 
mended by  the  fact  that  it  would  bring  together  a  much 
larger  body  of  Davidic  Psalms  and  so  account  for  the 
statement  of  Ps.  72 :  20  and  also  would  unite  the 
Korahitic  and  Asaphitic  into  a  group  by  themselves. 
It  is  altogether  probable  that  Ps.  72  once  stood  as  the 
last  Psalm  in  a  collection  which  was  joined  to  Book  I 
not  long  after  David's  time. 

2.  The  remainder  of  Books  II  and  III  were  probably 
brought  together  either  by  the  men  of  Hezekiah  (II 
Chron.  29:30;  Prov.  25:1)  or  during  the  reforms 
instituted  by  Josiah. 

3.  Books  IV  and  V  contain  post-exilic  Psalms  to- 
gether with  a  few  old  Davidic  Psalms.  They  were 
probably  collected  to  complete  the  Psalter  in  the  time 
of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  The  evidence  deduced  to  show 
that  there  are  Maccabean  Psalms  is  altogether  fanciful 
and  insufficient.  The  allusions  of  these  Psalms  are 
explained  equally  well  by  a  much  earlier  date. 

V.  Classes  of  Psalms.  The  Psalms  may  be  classified 
according  to  their  inscriptions,  their  structure  or  their 
subject  matter.  These  classifications  however  do  not 
include  all  the  Psalms. 

1.  According  to  the  Inscriptions  we  have  the  follow- 
ing names  for  the  Psalms : 
ni»tp  found  in  the  inscriptions  of  57  Psalms.     Prom 


262     OLD    TESTAMENT    liS^TRODUCTIOX 

"!»}  to  pipe,  sing — hence  Psalm,  especially  one  sung 
to  music.  Of  these  Pslams,  11  are  also  designated 
TK>  and  one  (Psalm  88)  T'K>  and  ^^?tJ>D.  This 
seems  to  imply  that  "ii^)P    is  the  general  name. 

TB^  the  usual  word  for  a  song  (Ex.  15  :  1 ;  Xum.  21 :  IT  ; 
Deut.  32:44  etc.)  is  the  name  of  29  Psalms,  of 
which  15  (Psalms  120-134)  are  called  nii^J^DH  -\>^ 
("song  of  ascents^')  which  were  sung  by  the  pil- 
grims on  their  way  to  the  feasts  at  Jerusalem,  one 
(Psalm  30)  n^BH  n3:n  -i^c^  for  the  dedication  of  the 
tabernacle  on  Mt.  Zion,  and  one  (Psalm  45) 
T\Stt  "»"'K>  {"  song  of  love  ")  a  marriage  song.  The 
name  T'C^  does  not  imply  the  use  of  musical 
instruments. 

i?"'3t^D  a  name  found  in  the  inscriptions  of  13  Psalms, 
of  which  one  is  also  n^Dri  (Psalm  142)  one  "liDp 
(Psalm  88)  and  two  "i^E?^  (Psalms  45  and  88). 
The  etymological  meaning,  "a  didactic  Psalm," 
does  not  fit  some  of  those  to  which  it  is  prefixed. 
It  probably  means  "  a  poem." 

DHDD  the  name  of  six  Psalms.  The  derivation  of  this 
word  from  Dri3  ''  gold  " — hence  "  a  golden  Psalm  " 
— is  altogether  fanciful.    Its  meaning  is  unknown. 

n>>sn  the  usual  word  for  prayer,  is  borne  by  five  Psalms. 

n?nn  the  word  which  in  the  masculine  plural  has  given 
the  name  to  the  Book  of  Psalms,  is  found  in  the 
inscription  of  Psalm  145.  It  means  "  a  praise- 
song." 

frili^  the  name  of  Psalm  7,  has  not  received  a  satisfactory 
interpretation. 


PSALMS  263 

2.  According  to  structure  the  most  interesting  class 
of   Psalms   is   the   Alphabetic   or   acrostic   Psalms,   in 
which  the  order  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet  is  found  at  the 
beginning  of  the  verses  or  half  verses.    The  only  perfect 
alphabetic  Psalm  is  the  119th  in  which  each  group  of 
verses  begins  with  the  successive  letters  of  the  alphabet. 
In  Psalms  111  and  112  the  first  letters  of  the  half 
verses  give  the  alphabet  except  that  in  each  Psalm  the 
letters  V  and  K>    are  lacking,  unless  verses  9  and  10  be 
divided  into  three  parts.     In  Psalm  145  one  verse  is 
devoted  to  each  letter  except  that  J  is  lacking.    In  Psalm 
25  the  same  arrangement  is  followed  except  that  the 
letters  2,  V  and  P  are  lacking,  "i  is  repeated,  and  a  sup- 
plementary verse  is  added.     Psalm  34  is  perfect  except 
for  the  omission  of  1  and  the  addition  of  a  similar  sup- 
plementary verse.    Psalms  9-10  together  and  Psalm  37 
present  an  alphabetic  arrangement  in  some  parts,  with 
two  verses  beginning  with  each  letter,  while  in  other 
parts  this  arrangement  is  ignored.     The  wide  diffusion 
of  the  alphabetic  Psalms  in  the  Psalter  (9, 10,  25,  34,  37, 
111,  112,  119,  145)  and  the  evident  antiquity  of  some 
of  them  are  sufficient  refutation  of  the  theory  that  this 
arrangement  is  evidence  of  a  late  date,  when  the  spon- 
taneity of  poetry  had  given  place  to  a  more  formal 
method. 

3.  According  to  their  contents  several  groups  of 
Psalms  are  worthy  of  attention. 

A,  National  Psalms,  those  which  were  occasioned  by 
the  events  of  national  life.  Such  are  Psalms  14,  44,  46- 
48,  53,  66,  68,  74,  76,  79-80,  83,  85,  87,  108,  122,  124- 
126  and  129.  The  tendency  of  modern  interpretation 
is  largely  to  increase  the  number  of  these  Psalms  making 
the  "I"  of  the  Psalmist  refer  as  a  collective  to  the 


264     OLD    TESTAMEISTT    INTRODUCTION 

experiences  of  the  nation.  Many  of  the  Psahns  are  so 
intensely  individual  in  the  expression  of  personal  feeling 
that  such  an  interpretation  is  forced  and  unnatural. 

B.  Historical  Psalms,  which  rehearse  passages  from 
the  nation's  history.  Such  are  Psalms  78,  81,  105-106, 
114. 

C.  Eoyal  Psalms,  some  of  them  relating  to  the  Mes- 
sianic King.  Such  are  Psalms  2,  18,  20-21,  45,  72,  89, 
110  and  132. 

D.  Penitential  Psalms,  written  in  reference  to  some 
occasion  of  intense  sorrow  for  sin  and  turning  to  God. 
Such  are  Psalms  6,  32,  38,  51  and  130. 

E.  Imprecatory  Psalms,  which  call  down  maledictions 
upon  the  enemies  of  Israel.  The  principal  of  these  are 
Psalms  35,  69,  109  and  137  of  which  the  first  three  are 
David's.  In  explanation  of  them  the  following  consid- 
erations should  be  noted. 

(a)  The  expressions  are  not  individual  but  official. 
The  Psalmist  desires  the  punishment  of  those  who  have 
wasted  Israel,  the  visible  kingdom  of  God  and  hence  are 
God's  enemies  (Ps.  139:21-22).  David  was  not  vin- 
dictive toward  his  personal  enemies  but  exhibited  a 
remarkably  forgiving  spirit  in  regard  to  Saul  and  his 
house  (I  Sam.  24;  26:5-12;  II  Sam.  1:17;  2:5;  9). 
In  these  Psalms  he  prays  God  to  punish  his  enemies 
rather  than  doing  so  himself. 

(h)  In  the  time  of  the  Psalmists,  there  was  no  clear 
revelation  of  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  after  death. 
Punishment  was  thought  of  as  coming  in  this  present 
life.  The  most  awful  of  these  imprecations  are  not 
more  terrible  than  the  future  torments  of  the  wicked 
mentioned  in  the  New  Testament  (Mark  9 :  44,  46,  48; 
Eev.  20:15). 


PSALMS  2G5 

(c)  The  high  standard  of  love  toward  one's  enemies 
was  not  yet  revealed  (Matt.  5:38-42).  The  impre- 
catory Psalms  contain  expressions  more  realistic  and 
vivid  in  their  force  than  any  in  the  New  Testament 
because  the  Psalmists  lived  on  a  lower  plane  of  morals 
and  privilege  than  we  enjoy.  Yet  the  New  Testament 
denunciations  of  the  wicked,  though  less  physical,  are 
far  more  terrible  than  those  of  the  Old  Testament  (Matt. 
3:7;  11:20-24;  23 :  13-33 ;  Jno.  3:36;  Eev.  6:16-17). 

F.  Hallelujah  Psalms,  such  as  begin  with  Pi;i^^n. 
Such  are  Psalms  106,  111-113,  117,  135,  146-150. 

G.  Hodu  Psalms,  beginning  with  nin.  Psalms  of 
thanksgiving,  viz.,  Psalms  105,  107,  118,  136. 

H.  The  Hallel,  comprising  Psalms  113-118  which 
were  sung  at  the  Passover,  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles, 
Pentecost,  Dedication  and  the  new  moons.  At  the  Pass- 
over the  people  sang  the  first  verse  of  each  Psalm  in  the 
Hallel  and  responded  with  Hallelujah  after  each  verse 
was  sung  by  the  Levites.  The  hymn  sung  at  the  insti- 
tution of  the  Lord's  Supper  was  probably  the  Hallel 
(Matt.  26:30;  Mk.  14:26). 

A^L    Musical  Terms. 
nsf^o^  "  to  the  chief  musician,"  the  leader  of  the  choir. 

The  instructions  in  the  inscriptions  were  intended 

for  his  guidance. 
niJ^JJ   (also  used  in  the  singular  r\T)\)  means  stringed 

instruments. 
ni^"'n!in  "  wind  instruments. 
n^ymn  probably  "  the  octave." 
niD^y    "maidens,"  to  be  sung  by  maidens    (I  Chron. 

15:20). 
rhn'O  "  sickness,  grief  "—hence  to  a  mournful  tune. 


.266  OLD  TESTAMEXT  IXTRODrCTIOX 

n^nsn-fjy    (II  Sam.  15:  IS) 
\3h  n^o  hv 


:':;r'j*-tjy    (Ps.  60:  l:  80:1) 


The  names  or  first 
lines  of  the  melodies 
to  which  the  Psalms 
were  sun^. 


Tiho  is  derived  from  S^D/  hence  "  elevation."    It  probablv 
marks  a  change  from  piano  to  forte. 


II 

PROVERBS 

I.  Name.  The  book  is  named  in  the  Hebrew  Bible 
n»^C>  ^^K^  or  more  briefly  '•^K^.  A  h^^  is  primarily  a 
comparison,  but  since  the  most  common  form  of 
proverbs  is  by  comparison,  all  proverbs  are  called  by 
this  name.  A  proverb  is  a  sententious,  synthetic  or 
antithetic  statement  of  a  principle  which  covers  many 
cases.  Though  many  of  the  proverbs  of  Solomon  are 
religious,  in  the  main  they  are  maxims  of  worldly  wis- 
dom and  ethics.  They  belong  to  the  nopn  or  Wisdom 
Literature.  In  the  Septuagint  the  title  is  translated 
ITapotfxiat  SoXofiwvTo^  and  in  the  Vulgate  more  simply 
Liber  Proverbiorum.  The  English  name  is  derived 
from  the  Vulgate. 

II.  Divisions.  The  book  is  divided  by  its  headings 
and  subject  matter  into  five  parts : 

1.  Chapters  1-9  beginning  "The  proverbs  of  Solo- 
mon the  son  of  David,  king  of  Israel." 

2.  Chapters  10 : 1  to  22 :  16,  with  the  heading  "  The 
Proverbs  of  Solomon." 

3.  Chapters  22: 17  to  24:  34  is  marked  off  from  the 
previous  section  by  an  evident  resumption  of  the  con- 
secutive style. 

4.  Chapters  25-29  with  the  heading  "  These  are  also 
proverbs  of  Solomon  which  the  men  of  Hezekiah,  king 
of  Judah,  copied  out." 

5.  Chapters  30-31,  the  former  inscribed  "the  words 

?6T 


268     OLD    TESTAMENT    INTRODUCTION 

of  Agur,  the  son  of  Jakeh  "  and  the  latter  "  the  words 
of  King  Lemnel/' 

III.     Authorship  and  Composition. 

1.  Testimony  of  Scripture.  According  to  the  head- 
ings already  mentioned  Solomon  was  the  author  of 
chapters  1  to  25  since  the  third  section  (22:  17  to  24: 
34)  resembles  the  first  (1  to  9).  The  fourth  section  is 
not  said  to  have  been  composed  by  the  men  of  Hezekiah 
but  copied  out  (  ip'^i^n  ) .  This  expression  implies  that 
they  took  these  proverbs  from  a  collection  of  Solomon's 
sayings  and  added  them  to  this  book.  Thus  the  entire 
book  except  the  last  two  chapters  is  ascribed  to  Solo- 
mon.' These  two  chapters  were  the  work  of  Agur  and 
Lemuel  respectively.  That  Solomon  was  the  author 
of  Proverbs  is  further  attested  bv  the  explicit  statement 
of  I  Kings  4 :  32  that  "  he  spake  three  thousand 
proverbs.^'  If  this  view  be  correct  we  may  conclude 
that  the  book  represents  four  distinct  collections  of 
Solomon's  proverbs,  the  last  made  in  Hezekiah's  day 
but  from  ancient  material,  to  which  at  an  unknown  later 
time  chapters  30-31  were  added.  There  is  nothing  in 
the  book  opposed  to  this  explanation  of  its  origin. 

2.  Critical  Opinion. 

a.  Moderate  view.  Modern  criticism  has  formulated 
a  different  account  of  the  book  although  with  wide 
divergence  as  to  dates.  The  moderate  critics  acknowl- 
edge that  Solomon  may  have  written  a  considerable 
portion  of  10:1  to  22:16,  which  is  considered  the 
oldest  nucleus  of  the  book.  This  section  received  its 
present  form  about  the  eighth  century.  It  is  said  that 
1 : 1  is  not  a  heading  but  the  beginning  of  a  sentence 
speaking  of  the  value  of  Solomon's  proverbs.  Chapters 
1-9  are  considered  a  hortatory  introduction  which  was 


PROVEEBS  269 

prefixed  to  the  second  section  shortly  before  the  Exile. 
A  little  later  but  also  before  the  Exile,  22 :  17  to  24 :  34: 
was  added  and  possibly  at  the  same  time  chapters  25-29. 
Chapters  30-31  were  added  to  the  book  after  the  Exile. 
Such  in  general  is  the  opinion  of  Driver,  Delitzsch, 
Xowack,  and  Davidson. 

h.  Radical  view.  The  more  advanced  critics  agree  in 
general  with  this  account  of  the  gradual  compilation  of 
the  book  but  place  the  dates  much  later.  Toy  for  ex- 
ample thinks  that  the  oldest  section  came  from  about 
350  B.C.  and  that  the  closing  chapters  were  not  added 
until  the  second  century  B.C. 

1.  He  freely  rejects  the  authorship  of  Solomon  with 
the  words :  "  The  fact  that  he  is  said  to  be  the  author  of 
Proverbs,  Canticles,  Ecclesiastes  and  Psalms  72  and 
127  shows  that  the  Jewish  tradition  came  to  regard  him 
as  the  ideal  of  wisdom  and  a  writer  of  idealizing,  non- 
liturgical  poetry  and  ascribed  to  him  indiscriminately 
everything  of  this  sort"  (International  Crit.  Com.  pp. 

xix-xx) . 

Answer.—Such  an  argument  as  this  would  make  it 
impossible  for  a  man  to  write  several  books  of  the  same 
kind.  It  has  no  historical  basis  and  inverts  the  logical 
order.  Solomon  could  not  have  had  such  a  reputation 
unless  he  had  written  just  such  books  as  these.  The 
books  were  not  assigned  to  him  because  he  had  the  repu- 
tation but  he  gained  the  reputation  by  writing  the  books. 

2.  The  tacit  assumption  of  monotheism  implies  a 
time  after  the  Exile. 

Answer.— The  Proverbs  are  not  of  such  a  sort  that 
idolatry  would  be  condemned  if  it  were  in  existence. 
The  book  is  moral  rather  than  religious.  In  part  of 
Solomon's  reign  the  country  was  comparatively  free 


270      OLD    TESTAMENT    INTRODUCTION 

from  idolatry.  In  all  probability,  Solomon  wrote  these 
proverbs  before  his  damaging  intercourse  with  heathen 
nations. 

3.  There  is  a  lack  of  national  traits  implying  that 
the  people  were  scattered,  under  Persian  and  Greek 
domination,  as  after  the  Exile. 

Answer. — Admittedly  there  are  almost  no  historical 
marks  in  the  book.  Therefore  the  absence  of  marks 
of  an  early  period  no  more  indicates  a  late  date  than 
the  absence  of  marks  of  a  late  date  is  proof  of  an  early 
date.  If  left  to  the  historical  marks,  we  could  not  deter- 
mine the  date  at  all.  The  book  is  individual  rather  than 
national. 

4.  The  book  reflects  the  social  manners  and  vices 
which  existed  after  the  Exile  especially  in  the  cities. 

Answer. — There  is  evidence  from  the  Book  of  Kings 
that  Solomon's  time  was  by  no  means  free  from  those 
same  vices. 

5.  There  are  evidences  of  the  influence  of  the  Greek 
philosophy — especially  in  the  identification  of  knowl- 
edge and  virtue.  Hence  it  must  date  from  a  time  later 
than  the  conquests  of  Alexander. 

Answer. — The  book  is  not  philosophical  but  practical. 
The  traces  of  the  Greek  philosophy  are  purely  imaginary 
and  may  be  explained  as  the  inspired  words  of  Solomon. 

6.  The  book  is  evidently  the  work  of  a  distinct  caste 
of  "wise  men"  who  also  composed  Jesus  Sirach,  the 
Wisdom  of  Solomon  and  Ecclesiastes. 

Answer. — The  supposition  of  a  caste  of  wise  men 
implies  a  founder.  As  the  Prophets  are  incompre- 
hensible without  Moses  and  the  other  Psalmists  with- 
out David,  so  the  later  wisdom  literature  is  incompre- 
hensible without  Solomon.    A  caste  of  wise  men  seem 


PEOVEEBS  271 

to  have  existed  besides  the  priest  and  proplicts  at  least 
as  early  as  Jeremiah  (18  :  18) .  It  is  a  gratuitous  assump- 
tion to  force  all  that  literature  into  one  age.  The  fact 
that  Ecclesiastes  and  the  Book  of  Wisdom  were  wrongly 
assigned  to  Solomon  shows  that  he  w^as  considered  the 
founder  and  greatest  member  of  that  school  of  writers. 


Ill 

JOB 

I.  Name.  The  book  received  its  name  from  its 
principal  character  ^i*J<  which  in  the  Septuagint  has 
the  form  Voi/J  and  in  the  Vulgate  Liber  Jolx  The  name 
means  "he  who  turns  to  God."  The  English  has 
come  from  the  Vulgate  and  does  not  reproduce  the 
Hebrew. 

II.  Historicity.  It  is  admitted  that  Job  was  a  real 
character  in  popular  tradition  even  by  those  who  deny 
the  historicity  of  the  events  recorded  in  the  book.  A 
common  view  is  that  there  was  a  real  character  whose 
name  was  Job  and  who  was  a  great  sufferer,  that  an 
Israelitish  writer  made  that  character  the  basis  of  this 
poetic  and  philosophical  discussion  of  the  problem  of 
human  suffering. 

The  existence  of  Job  and  his  wide  reputation  for 
piety  is  evidenced  by  Ezekiel's  reference  to  him  with 
Noah  and  Daniel  as  a  model  of  righteousness  (Ezek. 
14:14-20).  The  reference  in  James  5:11  favors  the 
same  view.  A  careful  study  of  the  book  itself  does  not 
show  it  a  work  of  the  imagination.  The  characters  do 
not  bear  symbolic  names.  It  has  been  attempted  to 
derive  ni»X  from  n^K  in  the  meaning  "  the  afflicted  one," 
but  12^  means  "  to  be  hostile  to,  treat  as  an  enemy  " 
(Brown's  Lexicon).  The  better  derivation  is  from 
Arabic  "he  who  turns  to  God."  The  names  of  the 
three  friends,  of  Elihu,  and  of  Job's  three  daughters 

2n 


JOB  273 

(Job  42 :  14)  are  not  symbolic.  The  land  of  Uz  was 
known  to  Jeremiah  (Lam.  4:  21)  and  the  tribe  of  that 
name  is  mentioned  in  Genesis  (10 :  23 ;  22 :  21 ;  36  :  28) . 
It  was  east  of  Palestine  near  Edom.  The  historical 
character  of  the  prologue  and  epilogue  seems  to  indicate 
the  historical  basis  of  the  poetical  portion.  The  most 
likely  conclusion  is  that  according  to  a  reliable  tradition 
Job's  three  friends  contended  with  him  in  his  affliction 
presenting  the  arguments  which  we  have  in  the  book„ 
Elihu  followed  and  finally  God  himself  spoke  to  Job  in 
some  wonderful  way  from  the  whirlwind.  The  author 
gave  these  speeches  the  poetical  form  in  which  they  have 
come  down  to  us. 

III.  Theme.  The  subject  of  the  book  is  the  most 
profound  question  of  human  life,  the  question  of  the- 
odicy, how  the  existence  of  righteous  suffering  in  the 
world  can  be  reconciled  with  the  existence  of  a  benevo- 
lent and  all-powerful  God.  The  arguments  on  this 
question  are  greatly  enhanced  in  value  because  they  are 
based  upon  an  actual  example  of  a  righteous  man  in 
affliction.  The  hint  of  the  solution  of  the  problem  is 
in  the  scene  in  heaven  in  the  prologue. 

The  three  friends  present  substantially  the  same 
opinion,  that  suffering  must  always  be  the  result  of 
sin.  Job  is  unable  to  answer  their  arguments  satis- 
factorily, yet  he  protests  his  innocence.  Sometimes  in 
his  despair  he  longs  to  die,  and  charges  God  with  deal- 
ing unjustly  with  him,  and  at  others  he  resorts  to  bitter 
sarcasm  in  answering  the  friends.  Again  he  expresses 
his  confidence  that  light  will  come  at  last  into  the  dark- 
ness and  that  he  will  be  vindicated.  Elihu  enters  with 
an  entirely  different  theory  of  suffering,  that  God  sends 
it  upon  those  he  loves  for  their  chastening  and  better- 


274     OLD    TESTAMENT    IXTRODUCTIO]^ 

ment.  This  view  silences  the  friends  but  also  condemns 
Job  for  charging  God  with  injustice.  It  is  a  defense 
of  God  (36:2)  and  therefore  logically  introduces  the 
address  of  God  himself.  This  final  address  displays 
the  majesty  and  wisdom  of  God  and  the  littleness  of 
man.  It  humbles  Job  and  thus  becomes  the  means  of 
his  restoration  to  prosperity. 

The  Book  of  Job  is  incomparably  the  most  profound 
and  dramatic  presentation  of  this  problem  in  all 
literature.  Its  proper  solution  of  the  question  in  the 
abstract  brings  it  very  near  to  the  New  Testament  solu- 
tion in  real  life.  The  righteous  sufferer,  Job,  fore- 
shadows the  righteous  sufferer,  Christ,  and  the  increased 
blessings  resulting  from  Job's  sufferings  foreshadow  the 
incalculable  blessings  which  result  from  the  sufferings 
of  Christ.  This  view  is  substantiated  by  the  statement 
of  Jas.  5  :  11. 

Franz  Delitzsch  has  well  said:  "The  real  contents 
of  the  book  of  Job  is  the  mystery  of  the  Cross :  the  Cross 
of  Golgotha  is  the  solution  of  the  enigma  of  every 
cross;  and  the  book  of  Job  is  a  prophecy  of  this  final 
solution"  (Commentary  Vol.  i  p.  32). 

IV.     Divisions.     Prologue.     Chapters  1  and  2. 

1.  First  cycle  of  addresses,  beginning  with  Job  fol- 
lowed by  each  one  of  the  three  friends,  each  in  turn 
answered  by  Job.     Chapters  3-1-1. 

2.  Second  cycle  of  addresses,  in  which  each  friend 
addresses  Job  and  is  answered  by  him  in  turn.  Chapters 
15-21. 

3.  Third  cycle  of  addresses,  in  which  Eliphaz  speaks 
at  length,  Bildad  very  briefly  and  Zophar  not  all.  They 
are  answered  by  Job  who  continues  the  argument  at 
considerable  length.     Chapters  22-31. 


JOB  275 

4.  Argument  of  Elihu.     Chapters  32-37. 

5.  Jehovah  speaks.     Chapters  38-41. 
Epilogue.     Chapter  42. 

V.  Date  and  authorship.  Two  distinct  questions 
of  date  arise  in  connection  with  this  book,  the  date  of 
the  events  recorded  in  the  book  and  the  date  of  its 
authorship. 

1.  Date  of  the  events.  All  the  data  concerning  the 
time  of  Job  mark  it  as  very  early,  not  later  than  the 
time  of  Moses.  The  family  life  as  depicted  in  the 
prologue,  the  extensive  o^vnership  of  cattle,  the  offer- 
ing of  the  sacrifice  by  the  head  of  the  family,  and  the 
great  age  to  w^hich  Job  lived  point  unmistakably  to 
patriarchal  times.  The  mention  of  the  n;p"'ti>i5  (Job 
42: 11),  a  piece  of  money  spoken  of  elsewhere  only  in 
patriarchal  times  (Gen.  33:19;  Josh.  24:32)  points 
in  the  same  direction.  Furthermore  the  comparative 
absence  of  allusions  to  the  Mosaic  law  or  the  national 
history  of  Israel  presupposes  a  time  before  the  founding 
of  the  nation.  On  the  other  hand  the  fact  that  Job 
lived  outside  of  Israel  might  account  for  his  silence 
concerning  its  law  and  history  without  the  supposition 
of  an  early  date.  And  the  fact  that  patriarchal  life 
continued  in  these  eastern  countries  much  later  than 
in  Canaan  and  in  many  places  even  to  the  present  day, 
makes  the  supposition  of  a  pre-Mosaic  date  on  this 
account  unnecessary.  Yet  the  probable  date  of  the 
book  requires  a  date  for  the  events  at  least  before 
Solomon. 

2.  Date  of  the  hook.  This  is  somewhat  easier  to 
determine  though  there  has  been  a  wide  divergence  of 
opinion.  The  book  has  been  assigned  by  different 
critics  to  four  different  periods. 


276     OLD    TESTAMENT    IXTEODUCTION 

A.  Patriarclial.  This  view  advocated  by  the  Talmud 
and  in  modern  times  by  Ebrard  rests  mainly  on  the 
points  already  mentioned  which  seem  to  place  the  man 
Job  in  very  early  times.  It  is  assumed  that  it  was 
written  in  Job's  time,  by  Job  himself,  by  Elihu  or  by 
Moses.  This  opinion  is  not  held  by  any  recent  authori- 
ties and  requires  no  refutation.  It  is  affirmed  by  Driver. 
Davidson  and  others  that  certain  signs  of  an  acquaint- 
ance with  the  Mosaic  law  can  be  detected  in  the  book. 
Such  are  the  mention  of  pledges  (24:  9),  of  landmarks, 
(24:  2)  and  of  judicial  procedure  in  cases  of  adultery 
(31:9)  and  of  the  worship  of  the  sun  and  moon 
(31 :  26).  These  references  however  shed  no  light  upon 
the  date  of  the  book,  since  similar  laws  existed  before 
Moses  and  the  worship  of  the  sun  and  moon  is  abhorrent 
to  the  pure  monotheism  of  Job  even  without  any  legal 
prohibition.  The  real  argument  against  the  patriarchal 
date  is  found  in  the  book  itself  considered  as  a  part  of 
the  Wisdom  Literature. 

B.  Solomonic.  This  view  advocated  by  Luther  and 
more  recently  by  Franz  Delitzsch  and  others  is  the  most 
satisfactory.  The  time  of  Solomon  was  one  when  the 
deepest  practical  questions  of  life  engaged  the  thought 
of  the  wise.  The  Proverbs  of  Solomon  in  parts  move  in 
the  same  circle  of  ideas  as  Job.  The  prominence  given 
to  "wisdom''  (15:8  and  chapter  28)  is  very  similar 
to  Proverbs  8.  The  masterly  and  original  way  in  which 
the  questions  of  "  wisdom  "  are  dealt  with  in  the  Book 
of  Job  precludes  the  idea  of  a  late  date  when  the  wisdom 
literature  had  become  formal  and  imitative  (Jesus 
Sirach  and  Wisdom  of  Solomon).  Delitzsch  rightly 
says  concerning  the  book :  "  It  bears  throughout  the 
stamp  of  that  creative,  beginning  period  of  the  Chokma, 


JOB  277 

— of  that  Solomonic  age  of  knowledge  and  art,  of  deeper 
thought  respecting  revealed  religion,  and  of  intelligent 
progressive  culture  of  the  traditional  forms  of  art, — 
that  unprecedented  age,  in  which  the  literature  cor- 
responds to  the  summit  of  glorious  magnificence  to 
which  the  kingdom  of  the  promise  had  then  attained  " 
(Commentary  p.  21).  The  wide  knowledge  of  foreign 
nations  displayed  in  the  book  also  confirms  the  Solo- 
monic date.  Whether  Solomon  was  himself  the  author 
or  another  writer  of  his  time,  it  is  fruitless  to  spec- 
ulate. 

C.  The  seventh  century  B.C.,  shortly  after  the  fall  of 
the  northern  kingdom,  possibly  in  the  reign  of  Manasseh. 
This  view  was  maintained  by  Ewald  and  Hitzig.  The 
principal  arguments  for  it  are  the  assertion  that  in  that 
time  as  in  the  Book  of  Job  the  questions  of  providence 
were  subjected  to  doubt,  and  the  evidences  of  wide- 
spread misfortune  (Job  3:20;  7:1;  9:24;  12:6; 
24:12). 

Answer. — The  former  of  these  arguments  is  no  cri- 
terion of  date.  It  is  difficult  to  see  why  an  age  like 
Solomon's  which  reflected  so  profoundly  on  the  problems 
of  daily  life  should  not  have  carried  their  thought  into 
the  region  of  divine  providence.  Concerning  the  latter 
argument  it  is  noteworthy  that  all  the  passages  referred 
to  are  in  the  speeches  of  Job.  They  do  not  indicate 
any  more  widespread  misfortune  than  can  be  found 
in  any  age  but  rather  were  elicited  by  the  misfortunes 
of  Job  himself  and  his  observation  that  the  wicked 
often  prosper.  The  latter  fact  is  most  often  exempli- 
fied in  just  such  times  of  splendor  and  luxury  as  were 
those  of  Solomon.  The  misfortune  of  the  Book  of  Job 
is  not  national  but  individual, 


278     OLD    TESTAMENT    INTE0DUCTI0:N' 

D.  The  iime  of  the  Exile,  shortly  before  or  shortly 
after  it,  600-400  B.C.  This  is  the  prevailing  view  to- 
day, defended  by  Budde,  Driver,  Davidson  and  Cheyne 
while  Cornill  fixes  the  date  not  earlier  than  250 
B.C.  The  arguments  as  summarized  by  Davidson 
are: 

1.  "The  extremely  developed  form  both  of  the 
morality  and  the  doctrine  of  God  in  the  book ; 

2.  The  points  of  contact  which  it  presents  with  Jere- 
miah and  the  ideas  of  his  age ;  and 

3.  The  strange  parallel  existing  between  Job  and  the 
"  Servant  of  the  Lord "  in  the  second  part  of  Isaiah 
(Commentary,  p.  Ixiv). 

Answer. — There  is  no  evidence  in  the  book  of  a  moral- 
ity or  doctrine  of  God  more  highly  developed  than  they 
were  in  the  time  of  Solomon.  Surely  the  ethics  and 
theology  of  the  Davidic  Psalms  and  the  Proverbs  do 
not  fall  below  that  of  Job.  Furthermore  the  isolated 
character  of  the  patriarch  Job  makes  him  comparable 
to  Melchizedek  in  his  moral  and  religious  superiority 
to  the  men  of  his  time.  The  points  of  contact  with 
Jeremiah  are  accounted  for  by  Jeremiah's  acquaintance 
with  the  book.  The  parallel  between  Job  and  the 
"Servant  of  Jehovah"  in  Isaiah  is  only  the  parallel 
between  a  suffering  individual  and  a  suffering  nation. 
Both  point  to  the  righteous  sufferer  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment but  quite  independently  of  each  other. 

VI.     Composition. 

Many  critics,  even  those  with  radical  tendencies,  de- 
fend the  integrity  of  the  book  by  the  evident  artistic 
plan  of  its  arrangement.  Others  with  equal  confidence 
affirm  that  certain  parts  were  later  additions. 

1.  The  speeches  of  Elihu  (chapters  32-37)  are  con- 


JOB  279 

sidered  a  later  insertion  by  the  majority  of  modern 
critics.  The  principal  arguments  are  that  Elihu  is 
not  mentioned  in  the  prologue  or  the  epilogue,  that  he 
does  not  differ  from  the  three  friends  and  therefore 
has  no  purpose  in  the  book,  that  his  speeches  interrupt 
the  course  of  the  poem  since  Jehovah  answers  Job  not 
Elihu  (38:  1)  and  that  his  style  is  inferior  to  the  re- 
mainder of  the  book. 

Answer. — Elihu  is  not  mentioned  in  the  prologue 
because  he  did  not  enter  the  discussion  until  a  later 
stage  than  the  three  friends.  He  is  not  mentioned  in 
the  epilogue  because  his  purpose  as  the  forerunner  of 
Jehovah  was  accomplished.  It  is  not  true  that  Elihu's 
view  of  Job's  case  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  friends. 
On  the  contrary  it  was  just  because  of  their  error  that 
he  spoke  (32:3-12).  While  he  condemns  Job  for 
charging  God  with  injustice,  he  yet  desires  to  justify 
him  (33:32).  He  does  not  discuss  the  question  of 
righteous  suffering  so  much  as  prepare  the  way  by  his 
description  of  God's  majesty  for  Jehovah's  speech  from 
the  storm.  Indeed  Elihu's  speeches  belong  just  where 
they  are  because  he  sees  the  storm  gathering  (chapter 
37).  Davidson  admits  that  Elihu  exhibits  no  knowl- 
edge of  the  explanation  of  Job's  sufferings  in  the  pro- 
logue as  he  would  have  done  if  the  whole  book  had  been 
before  him.  Jehovah  answers  Job  rather  than  Elihu 
because  Job  was  the  central  figure,  while  there  is  noth- 
ing in  Elihu's  speeches  to  condemn.  Without  the 
speeches  of  Elihu  the  answer  from  the  storm  would  be 
abrupt.  Those  who  affirm  that  the  style  of  Elihu  is 
inferior  to  that  of  the  remainder  of  the  book  are  com- 
pelled to  admit  many  points  of  contact  between  it  and 
them.    Driver  considers  the  Elihu  speeches  "a  valua- 


280     OLD    TESTAMEN"T    INTRODUCTION 

He  supplement  to  "  the  book  and  says :  "  They  attach 
prominence  to  real  and  important  truths  which  in  the 
rest  of  the  book  might  seem  not  to  have  received  their 
proper  due"    (Introduction  p.  430). 

2.  Chapters  27 :  7  through  28  are  thought  by  Well- 
hausen,  Kuenen,  Cheyne  and  others  to  be  out  of  place 
in  their  present  position  in  the  book. 

a.  The  description  of  the  certain  misfortune  of  the 
wicked  in  27 :  7-23  is  said  to  be  a  sudden  break  from 
verse  6  and  unnatural  in  the  mouth  of  Job  since  Zophar 
had  already  expressed  similar  sentiments  in  chapter  20. 
Some  consider  it  a  part  of  Bildad's  speech  or  a  third 
speech  of  Zophar. 

Answer. — A  careful  reading  of  verse  7  makes  the 
whole  passage  plain.  Job's  three  friends  have  now  proved 
themselves  his  enemies.  In  his  despair,  he  wishes  that 
they  may  be  punished  for  their  hostility  toward  him. 
'^  Let  mine  enemy  be  as  the  wicked  and  he  that  riseth 
up  against  me  as  the  unrighteous."  The  following 
description  of  the  fate  of  the  wicked  is  meant  to  refer 
to  his  friends,  not  to  himself.  In  view  of  the  continued 
affirmation  of  his  own  righteousness.  Job  evidently 
had  an  expectation  of  his  final  restoration  as  in  the 
epilogue. 

h.  The  beautiful  description  of  the  search  for  wisdom 
in  chapter  28  is  said  to  break  the  connection  with  chap- 
ter 27  and  form  no  fitting  introduction  to  chapter 
29  and  to  be  altogether  strange  in  Job's  mouth  in 
view  of  his  previous  language  and  the  laments  of 
chapter  31. 

Answer. — The  ^3  with  which  chapter  28  opens  is 
indeed  somewhat  difficult  to  explain.  It  should  be  taken 
in  connection  with  the  statements  of  verse  12  and  later. 


JOB  281 

Job  has  been  describing  the  coming  punishment  of  his 
friends.  They  thought  that  wisdom  was  found  with 
them.  On  the  contrary  Job  says,  "  For  there  is  a 
mine  for  silver  and  a  place  for  gold  which  they  refme — 
but  where  shall  wisdom  be  found  and  where  is  the 
place  of  understanding?"  Chapter  29  m.akes  a  new 
beginning  and  it  is  therefore  unnecessary  to  find  a 
connection  with  chapter  28.  The  statements  of  chap- 
ter 28  are  not  more  inconsistent  with  the  other  speeches 
of  Job  than  the  hopeful  confidence  of  19 :  26-27  and 
later  passages.  Harassed  by  his  disease  and  by  the 
specious  arguments  of  his  friends,  Job  always  maintains 
his  righteousness  but  hovers  between  hope  and  despair. 
Chapter  28  seems  to  have  been  uttered  in  one  of  his 
calmer  moments.  The  laments  of  chapter  31  were  the 
result  of  a  new  outburst  of  despair. 

3.  Cheyne  thinks  the  prologue  and  epilogue  later 
additions  because  they  are  prose  and  because  the 
epilogue  represents  Job  as  rewarded  in  earthly  bless- 
ings for  his  righteousness,  "  a  sad  concession  to  a 
low  view  of  providential  dealings "  (Job  and  Solo- 
mon p.  69). 

Answer. — Without  the  prologue  and  epilogue  the  book 
and  its  problem  are  entirely  insoluble.  The  explana- 
tion of  Job's  sufferings  is  found  in  the  scene  in  heaven 
in  the  prologue  and  without  the  epilogue  Job  is  left 
unrewarded  and  the  friends  unpunished.  The  fact 
that  Job's  restoration  is  earthly  and  physical  is  made 
necessary  by  the  fact  that  his  sufferings  had  been  of 
the  same  kind  and  that  no  other  kind  of  reward  was 
known  to  saints  in  his  time. 

4.  Cheyne  also  rejects  the  speeches  of  the  Almighty 
(chapters    38-41)    and    especially    the    description    of 


282     OLD    TESTAMEXT    IXTRODUCTIOX 

behemoth   (40 :  15  to  -il :  34)   as  a  disturbing  element 
in  the  book  and  the  latter  as  in  bad  taste. 

Answer. — Questions  of  literary  taste  cannot  be  allowed 
to  disturb  the  integrity  of  a  book.  If  these  speeches 
of  Jehovah  from  the  storm  are  removed  the  book  has 
no  climax,  its  problem  is  left  unsolved,  and  its  most 
beautiful  section  is  lost. 


SECTION  II:    MEGILLOTH 
I 

SONG   OF   SOLOMON" 

I.  Name.  The  Hebrew  name  Dn^^n  n^K^  (the  Song 
of  Songs)  is  derived  from  the  first  verse  of  the  book 
and  is  a  superlative,  meaning  that  among  all  songs 
this  one  contains  all  that  is  best  and  noblest.  The 
Septuagint  translates  the  name  a^ixa  dfffidrwv^  and  the 
Vulgate  Canticum  Canticorum.  From  the  latter  come 
the  English  name  Canticles  and  the  name  in  the  English 
Revision,  "The  Song  of  Songs,"  while  that  in  the 
Authorized  and  American  Eevised  Version  is  "The 
Song  of  Solomon." 

II.  Authorship  and  Date. 

1.  Testimony  of  the  Bool'.  According  to  the  inscrip- 
tion Solomon  was  the  author,  for  here  as  in  the 
inscriptions  of  the  Psalms  ^  indicates  authorship.  An 
examination  of  the  book  itself  confirms  the  Solomonic 
authorship.  The  frequent  mention  of  exotic  plants 
and  the  extensive  knowledge  of  plants  and  animals 
as  well  as  the  evidences  of  royal  luxury  agree  with  the 
description  of  Solomon's  time  in  the  historical  books. 
The  book  also  has  points  of  contact  with  the  other 
works  of  Solomon   (Ps.  72  and  Prov.). 

2.  Critical  Opinion.  Driver  and  others  favor  a  date 
somewhat  later  than  Solomon  while  Kuenen,  Corn- 
ill,  and  Cheyne  assign  the  Song  to  the  Greek  period. 


284     OLD    TESTAMENT    IXTEODUCTIO:^' 

The  arguments  for  the  latter  position  are  chiefly  as 
follows : 

A.  The  superscription  contains  the  form  itJ'X  while 
the  shorter  K>  is  found  elsewhere  throughout  the  book. 
It  is  thought  therefore  that  the  superscription  was  a 
later  addition  because  of  the  frequent  mention  of  Solo- 
mon in  the  book.  Some  critics  affirm  that  it  should  be 
translated  "  which  relates  to  Solomon.'* 

Answer. — That  the  i?  here  means  authorship  is  evident 
from  the  analogy  of  the  Psalms.  The  relative  ^t^•^^  is 
appropriate  to  the  prose  of  the  superscription  and  the 
shorter  f  to  the  poetry  of  the  Song.  Without  this 
heading  the  book  opens  very  abruptly. 

B.  Several  late  words  and  forms  are  found  in  the 
book :  the  shorter  relative  ^^  D"nns  a  Persian  word,  P^iQK 
connected  with  the  Indian  ^paryama'  or  the  Greek 
(popeTov  and  the  Aramaic  1£?J/  riiis  and  inp. 

Answer. — The  presence  of  these  words  is  not  incon- 
sistent with  the  Solomonic  authorship.  The  shorter 
relative  is  found  in  poetry  long  before  the  time  of  Solo- 
mon (Judges  5:7)  and  is  here  a  conscious  mark  of 
poetry,  as  is  seen  from  the  use  of  it^^^  in  the  prose  of 
1:1.  The  extensive  commerce  of  Solomon  accounts 
for  the  introduction  of  a  few  Persian,  Greek  or  Indian 
words,  the  names  of  articles  imported  from  those  coun- 
tries or  of  gardens  imitated  from  them.  The  Aramaic 
words  may  have  been  introduced  in  imitation  of  the 
northern  dialect  which  was  spoken  by  Shulamite. 

III.  Interpretation.  Three  methods  of  interpre- 
tation of  this  admittedly  difficult  book  have  prevailed; 
the  allegorical,  the  literal  and  the  typical. 

1.  The  Allegorical  Interpretation  was  favored  by  the 


SON"G    OF    SOLOMON  285 

Jews  from  the  earliest  times,  was  introduced  into  the 
Christian  Church  by  Origen,  and  has  been  favored  in 
modern  times  in  a  moderate  form  by  Lowth,  llengsten- 
berg,  Keil,  and  Stuart.  This  view  generally  denies  the 
historical  character  of  the  events  recorded.  In  its 
Jewish  form,  it  considers  the  book  a  poem  descriptive 
of  the  love  between  Jehovah  and  Israel,  and  in  the 
Christian  form  between  Christ  and  the  church  or  the 
believer.  Every  detail  is  explained  on  this  theory,  often 
in  a  fanciful  way. 

The  principal  argrfments  in  favor  of  this  method 
are: 

A.  It  is  thought  necessary  to  justify  the  presence  of 
the  book  in  the  canon.  The  book  seems  to  be  a  song 
of  merely  earthly  if  not  sensual  love.  It  is  argued 
that  it  must  have  had  a  religious  meaning  or  it  would 
not  have  been  received  into  the  canon. 

B.  The  same  imagery  is  found  throughout  the  Bible. 
Eepeatedly  in  the  Old  Testament  the  relation  of  Jehovah 
to  His  people  is  compared  to  marriage  (Ts.  54:5; 
61:  10)  and  apostasy  from  Him  is  compared  to  whore- 
dom (Ex.  34:15-16;  Lev.  20:5-6;  Jer.  3:1;  Ezek. 
chapters  16  and  23  and  Hosea  1-3).  In  the  'New  Testa- 
ment the  same  figure  is  transferred  to  the  relation 
between  Christ  and  the  church  (Eph.  5:  23-32). 

C.  The  same  allegorical  method  is  applied  to  Psalm 
45  and  Isa.  5 :  1-7. 

Answer. — These  arguments  apply  with  equal  force  in 
favor  of  the  typical  interpretation.  On  the  other  hand 
serious  objections  may  be  raised  to  the  allegorical 
method. 

A.  There  is  nothing  in  the  book  itself  which  pre- 
cludes its  historical  character.  Historical  characters  and 


^86  OLD  TESTAMENT  IXTRODUCTIOX 

places  are  mentioned  and  the  whole  book  bears  the  marks 
of  reality. 

B,  The  allegorical  method  requires  the  explanation 
of  every  detail  in  a  spiritual  way  and  therefore  leads 
to  the  most  extravagant  and  unfounded  interpretations, 
which  bring  the  book  into  disrepute  with  reasonable  peo- 
ple. Thus  the  Targum  makes  the  entire  song  an 
allegorical  interpretation  of  the  history  of  Israel  from 
the  Exodus  to  the  coming  of  the  Messiah. 

2.  The  Literal  Interpretation  at  the  other  extreme 
considers  the  Song  as  literal  history  without  any  ulterior 
meaning.  In  order  to  justify  its  presence  in  the  canon 
in  modern  times  the  Shepherd-hypothesis  has  been 
advocated  by  Jacobi,  Umbreit,  Ewald,  and  most  moderns. 
These  writers  find  a  third  character  in  the  song,  a  poor 
Galilean  shepherd  to  whom  Shulamite  was  espoused. 
They  claim  that  the  book  represents  the  faithfulness  of 
Shulamite  to  her  shepherd  lover  in  spite  of  the  allure- 
ments of  Solomon,  who  met  her  during  a  journey 
through  Galilee  and  brought  her  to  his  harem  near 
Jerusalem.  Solomon  is  said  to  urge  her  to  become  his 
wife  while  she  steadfastly  refuses  and  finally,  leaving 
the  palace,  returns  to  her  shepherd  lover. 

The  arguments  for  the  Shepherd-hypothesis  are 
chiefly  three: — 

A.  Shulamite  speaks  of  her  lover  as  a  shepherd  (1:7, 
16-17;  6:2-3). 

It  is  however  quite  natural  in  a  highly  poetic  and  fig- 
urative book  that  this  simple  country  maiden  should 
speak  of  her  royal  lover  in  language  borrowed  from  her 
northern  home. 

Answer.— That  the  language  refers  figuratively  to 
Solomon  and  not  literally  to  a  Galilean  shepherd  seems 


SONG    OF    SOLOMON"  287 

evident  in  6:2-3.  It  would  be  very  strange  to  say  of 
a  poor  shepherd :  "  My  beloved  has  gone  down  to  his 
garden,  to  the  beds  of  spices,  to  feed  in  the  gardens 
and  to  gather  lilies.  I  am  my  beloved's  and  my  beloved 
is  mine.  He  feedeth  his  flock  among  the  lilies."  But 
the  passage  is  plain  when  it  is  referred  to  Solomon's 
going  down  into  his  garden  of  spices  and  lilies. 

B.  Certain  passages  are  said  to  be  inexplicable  if 
there  be  no  rival  of  Solomon.  Thus  the  words  to  the 
daughters  of  Jerusalem  not  to  "  stir  up  nor  awake  love 
till  it  please  "  (2  :  7 ;  3  :  5 ;  8  :  4)  are  said  to  be  an  adjura- 
tion of  Shulamite  "  not  to  excite  in  her  the  passion  of 
love   artificially"    (for   Solomon). 

Answer. — The  added  words  "till  it  please"  imply 
that  Shulamite  is  not  unalterably  opposed  to  affection 
for  Solomon.  Her  love  for  him  is  so  strong  that  if 
permitted  its  full  exercise  it  would  be  painful.  In  each 
case  this  adjuration  follows  the  meeting  of  the  lovers. 
If  the  lovers  be  Shulamite  and  the  shepherd,  it 
would  be  indeed  strange  for  Shulamite  immediately 
to  speak  of  a  time  when  love  for  Solomon  would  be 
pleasing. 

Other  passages  which  are  said  to  be  unnatural  are 
3:4;  4:6;  6:4-5,  12;  7:8,  12;  8:1.  These  passages 
however  are  explicable  on  the  theory  that  the  book  is  a 
wedding-song  containing  recollections  of  the  ante- 
nuptial experiences  of  Solomon  and  Shulamite.  The 
events  mentioned  are  not  recorded  as  having  occurred 
in  the  order  stated  but  depict  the  emotions  of  the  lovers 
in  times  of  union  and  separation. 

C.  The  speeches  of  the  shepherd  lover  (2:10-14; 
4:8-15;  5:1;  8:13)  are  said  to  differ  in  tone  from 
those  of  Solomon  (1 :  9-11,  15 ;  2  ;  2 ;  4 ;  1-7 ;  6 :  4-10 ;  7 : 


288     OLD    TESTAMENT    INTRODUCTION 

1-9 ) .  Thus  Driver  says :  "  The  speeches  attributed  to 
the  king  are  somewhat  stiff  and  formal;  those  of  the 
lover  on  the  contrary  breathe  a  warm  and  devoted 
affection"  (Introduction  p.  447). 

Ansiuer. — This  is  made  so  by  assigning  the  warm  pas- 
sages to  the  shepherd  and  the  more  formal  ones  to  Solo- 
mon. The  arbitrariness  of  this  process  is  most  evident 
in  chapter  4  of  which  the  first  seven  verses  are  assigned 
to  Solomon  and  verses  8-15  to  the  shepherd,  although 
the  whole  is  evidently  from  one  speaker.  The  critics 
are  forced  to  this  conclusion  because  in  verses  8-15  the 
lover  calls  Shulamite  his  bride.  Furthermore  if  Solo- 
mon's speeches  are  stiff  and  formal,  his  alleged  char- 
acter as  the  seducer  of  Shulamite  is  not  supported. 
The  allusions  in  the  so-called  speeches  of  the  shepherd 
to  northern  places  and  customs  are  in  reality  references 
of  Solomon  in  remembrance  of  his  journey  through 
Galilee  where  he  first  met  Shulamite. 

There  are  other  very  serious  objections  to  the 
ShepJierd-Jiypothesis : 

A.  It  represents  Solomon  as  a  monster  of  iniquity 
taking  an  innocent  country  girl  by  force  for  his  harem. 
Although  Solomon  departed  from  the  ways  of  David 
in  later  life,  neither  the  record  of  him  in  the  historical 
books  nor  the  speeches  universally  assigned  to  him  in 
this  book  warrant  this  representation  of  his  character; 
and  if  he  had  such  a  character,  it  is  very  strange  that  he 
should  have  allowed  Shulamite  to  escape  him  and  marry 
the  shepherd,  as  the  critics  affirm. 

B.  It  is  necessary  to  read  much  into  the  text  of 
Shulamite's  speeches  to  imagine  her  resisting  the  ad- 
vances of  Solomon. 

C.  If  the  Shepherd-hypothesis  be  true,  the  presence  of 


SONG    OF    SOLOMON  289 

the  book  in  the  canon  is  inexplicable.  It  represents  the 
shame  of  Solomon.  And  yet  Solomon  is  either  its 
author  or  its  hero  according  to  the  superscription.  Else- 
where Solomon  is  represented  as  the  inspired  author  of 
wisdom  and  the  Prince  of  Peace.  That  his  shame 
should  be  thus  depicted  without  a  hint  either  of  his 
repentance  or  his  punishment  is  incredible. 

In  view  of  these  arguments  the  statement  of  Delitzsch 
is  justified  that  the  shepherd  ^^  is  nothing  else  than  a 
shadow  cast  by  the  person  of  Solomon^'  (Commentary 
p.  8). 

3.  The  Typical  Interpretation.  This  view  takes  the 
middle  ground  between  the  allegorical  and  the  literal, 
for  it  neither  denies  the  historical  basis  of  the  Song  nor 
its  spiritual  meaning.  It  avoids  the  fancifulness  of  the 
allegorical,  since  the  type  foreshadows  the  antitype  only 
in  a  few  main  points,  and  the  fancifulness  of  the 
Shepherd-hypothesis  since  it  finds  the  purpose  of  the 
book  not  in  the  faithfulness  of  Shulamite  under  imagi- 
nary temptation  but  in  the  typical  relation  between 
Solomon,  the  type  of  Christ,  and  Shulamite,  the  type 
of  the  church,  the  bride  of  Christ. 

Tlie  reasonableness  of  the  typical  interpretation  is 
seen  from  the  following  considerations: 

A.  The  book  is  called  ^' the  Song  of  Songs."  It  is 
inconceivable  that  it  would  receive  such  an  exalted 
name,  higher  than  that  of  any  other  poetry  in  the  Old 
Testament,  unless  it  had  a  religious  meaning. 

B.  Solomon  is  a  type  of  Christ.  This  is  seen  from 
the  promise  to  David  (II  Sam.  7:  12-17),  from  the  last 
words  of  David  (II  Sam.  23:1-7),  from  Solomon's 
work  in  building  the  temple,  from  Psalm  72,  and  from 
the  statement  of  our  Lord  (Matt.  12:42). 


290     OLD    TESTAMENT    INTEODUCTION 

C  The  relation  of  husband  and  wife  is  elsewhere  in 
the  Old  testament  typical  of  the  relation  between  Jeho- 
vah and  Israel  and  in  the  New  Testament  between 
Christ  and  the  Church. 

The  fullest  history  of  the  interpretation  of  the  Song 
is  found  in  Ginsburg's  commentary. 

TV.  Unity.  A  few  older  critics  (Herder,  de  Wette, 
Magnus,  and  Bleek)  have  considered  the  book  a  collec- 
tion of  love  songs  by  different  authors.  But  the  recur- 
rence of  identical  or  similar  expressions  (3:7;  3:5; 
8:4;  also  2:17;  8:14  and  2:16;  6:3)  the  presence 
of  Solomon,  Shulamite  and  the  daughters  of  Jerusalem 
throughout,  and  the  similarity  of  style  mark  it  as  the 
work  of  one  author.  Moreover  the  artistic  progress  in 
the  Song  makes  this  conclusion  inevitable. 

V.  Divisions.  The  arrangement  of  Delitzsch  is  as 
follows : 

^^  The  whole  falls  in  the  following  six  acts : 

"(1)  The  mutual  affection  of  the  lovers,  1:2-2:7; 
with  the  conclusion,  'I  adjure  you,  ye  daughters  of 
Jerusalem.' 

"(2)  The  mutual  seeking  and  finding  of  the  lovers, 
2:8-3:5  with  the  conclusion,  ^  I  adjure  you,  ye  daugh- 
ters of  Jerusalem,' 

"(3)   The  fetching  of  the  bride  and  the  marriage, 

3:6-5:1;    beginning   with    'Who    is    this ?'    and 

ending  with,  '  Drink  and  be  drunken,  beloved.' 

*'(4)  Love  scorned  but  won  again  5 :  2-6  :  8. 

"  (5)   Shulamith   the   attractively   fair   but   humble 

princess,  6  :  10-8  :  4,  beginning  with,  '  Who  is  this ? ' 

and  ending  "wdth  '  I  adjure  you,  ye  daughters  of  Jeru- 
salem.' 

"  (6)  The  ratification  of  the  covenant  in  Shulamith's 


SONG    OF    SOLOMOX  291 

home,  8:5-14,  beginning  with,  'Who  is  this ?'" 

(Commentary  pp.  9-10.) 

VI.  Form.  There  is  action  in  the  Song  but  it  is 
not  a  drama,  for  theatrical  performance  is  foreign  to 
the  Semitic  genius.  The  book  has  no  plot.  It  is  a 
song  intended  to  be  sung  at  the  marriage  of  Solomon 
and  Shulamite,  describing  events  in  their  courtship. 


II 

RUTH 

I.  Name.  The  book  is  named  from  its  principal 
character,  nn.  The  origin  of  the  name  is  uncertain. 
Some  connect  it  with  nsn  hence  "  sightly/'  wliile  others 
consider  it  an  error  for  riiyi  "  friendship."  The  Greek 
form  is  "Poud. 

II.  Historicity.  The  historical  character  of  the 
events  recorded  is  confirmed  by  David's  friendliness 
with  the  king  of  Moab  (I  Sam.  22  :  3-4)  which  was  quite 
natural  since  his  great-grandmother  was  Euth,  the 
Moabitess. 

III.  Date. 

1.  Testimony  of  the  Booh.  The  events  occurred  two 
generations  before  the  birth  of  David  in  the  time  of  the 
Judges  but  were  not  recorded  until  after  his  birth  and 
probably  after  his  accession  to  the  throne  (4:  21-22). 
A  date  in  David's  reign  accounts  for  the  purpose  of 
the  book,  to  give  the  ancestry  of  the  king.  Moreover 
the  necessity  of  explaining  the  custom  of  establishing 
a  bargain  by  drawing  off  the  shoe  (I:  T)  is  accounted 
for  by  the  fact  that  such  primitive  customs  would  prob- 
ably be  changed  at  the  beginning  of  the  kingdom. 

3.  Critical  opinion.  Some  critics  assign  the  book  to 
the  time  of  the  later  kings  and  others  to  a  post-exilic 
date  for  the  following  reasons: 

A.  The  explanation  of  -1 :  7  is  said  to  imply  a  long 
period  of  time  after  the  events  before  they  were  recorded. 

292 


EUTH  293 

Answer. — The  radical  change  of  government  from  the 
time  of  Euth  to  that  of  David  would  make  such  an 
explanation  necessary  after  fifty  years. 

B.  It  is  affirmed  that  the  writer  was  acquainted  with 
the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  (Euth  4 :  7  compare  Deut.  35 : 
7y  9)  and  the  Deuteronomic  Book  of  Judges  (Euth  1:1). 

Answer. — Since  the  books  of  Deuteronomy  and 
Judges  do  not  belong  to  the  time  to  which  the  critics 
assign  them,  the  acquaintance  of  the  author  of  Euth 
with  them  does  not  prove  a  late  date. 

C.  Certain  words  are  said  to  indicate  a  later  time. 
The  formula  nrhSn  n^X]  (4:18)  and  n^^in  are  among 
the  criteria  of  the  so-called  Hexateuchal  document  P. 
Other  late  forms  are  \\h  (1 :  13  compare  Dan.  2:6,  9 ; 
4 :  24) ;  -15b  (1 :  13  compare  Isa.  38  :  18 ;  Ps.  104 :  27 ; 
119  :  166 ;  145  :  15 ;  Esther  9:1);  nfe^D  (3  :  4,  7,  8,  14, 
found  elsewhere  only  Dan.  10 :  6)  and  D^p  (4 :  7  compare 
Ezek.  13:6;  Ps.  119:28,  106;  Esther  9:21,  27,  29, 
31,  32;  Dan.  6:8). 

Ansioer. — Since  the  so-called  document  P  was  really 
the  work  of  Moses,  resemblances  to  it  in  the  book  of 
Euth  are  no  evidence  of  date.  Moreover  it  is  practically 
impossible  that  the  book  of  Euth  was  written  after  the 
date  to  which  the  critics  assign  P.  The  prejudice  against 
foreign  alliances  in  the  time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  was 
so  strong  (Ezra  9-10;  Neh.  13;  23-29)  that  a  book  trac- 
ing the  ancestry  of  David  to  Moab  would  have  been 
discredited.  Driver  and  Strack  consider  the  genealogy 
(Euth  4:18-22),  in  which  the  resemblances  to  P  are 
found,  a  later  addition,  in  which  case  the  argument  falls. 
In  view  of  the  general  purity  of  the  style  of  Euth,  the 
presence  of  a  few  words  found  elsewhere  in  late  books 


294     OLD    TESTAMEXT    INTEODUCTION 

is  not  sufficient  evidence  of  a  later  origin.  The  Hebrew 
literature  which  we  possess  is  not  large  enough  to  make 
the  affirmation  safe,  that  these  words  were  not  used  in 
the  time  of  David. 

Nowack  has  adduced  the  following  forms  of  expres- 
sion which  Ruth  has  in  common  with  Samuel  and 
Kings : 

"Jehovah  do  so  to  me  and  more  also"  (Ruth  1:17 
compare  I  Sam.  3:17;  14:44;  I  Kings  2:23). 

"All  the  city  was  moved  about  them"  (Ruth  1 :  19 
compare  I  Sam.  4 :  5  ;  I  Kings  1 :  45). 

"  Her  hap  was  "  (Ruth  2:3;  compare  I  Sam.  6:9; 
20 :  26,  etc.) ;  ^b^X  "iSa  (Ruth  4 : 1  compare  I  Sam.  21 : 
3;  II  Kings  6:8). 

||K  >if»a  (Ruth  4:4  compare  I  Sam.  9:15;  20:2 
etc.).  Nowack  thinks  these  are  intentional  imitations  of 
the  older  style.  But  if  the  literary  argument  has  any 
value,  the  presence  of  these  words  in  the  Book  of  Ruth 
is  evidence  that  it  belongs  to  an  age  not  later  than  that 
of  Samuel  and  Kings  and  probably  to  the  time  of  David 
himself. 

IV.  Purpose.  The  purpose  of  the  book  was  to  fill 
up  the  gap  in  the  ancestry  of  David  (I  Sam.  16: 1-13) 
showing  the  pious  stock  from  which  he  sprang  and  his 
connection  with  the  Gentile  tribe  of  Moab.  Thus  it  is 
an  important  link  in  the  ancestry  of  Jesus  Christ.  Since 
His  mission  was  to  all  the  world,  it  was  meet  that  the 
pious  Gentiles  should  have  a  place  among  his  ancestors. 

Some  like  Reuss,  who  places  the  book  shortly  after 
the  fall  of  Samaria,  consider  it  an  attempt  to  establish 
for  the  Davidic  dynasty  authority  over  the  northern 
territory  through  Obed,  the  legal  son  of  the  Ephraimite 
Mahlon,    It  is  however  an  error  to  consider  Mahlon  an 


RUTH  295 

Ephraimite  (1:2)  and  in  any  case  the  relation  of  Obed 
to  Mahlon  was  not  sufficient  to  warrant  such  authority. 
Others  like  Driver  suggest  that  it  may  be  "  a  collateral 
didactic  aim  of  the  author  to  inculcate  the  duty  of  mar- 
riage on  the  part  of  the  next-of-kin  with  a  widow  ieft 
childless"  (p.  454).  Others  still,  like  Kuenen  and 
Cornill,  consider  it  a  polemic  against  the  narrow  oppo- 
sition of  Ezra  to  intermarriage  with  foreigners.  Such 
an  extreme  view  is  sufficiently  answered  by  an  unpreju- 
diced reading  of  the  book  itself. 
V.    Divisions. 

1.  History  of  Ruth  till  her  arrival  at  Bethlehem. 
Chapter  1. 

2.  Boaz  shows  her  favor  during  the  harvest.     Chap- 
ter 2. 

3.  Ruth  requests  Boaz  to  act  as  kinsman.    Chapter  3. 

4.  Boaz    fulfils    his    promise.      Their    descendants. 
Chapter  4. 


Ill 

LAMENTATIONS 

I.  Name.  In  the  Hebrew  Bible  the  book  is  named 
ny^  from  its  first  word.  Many  printed  texts,  however, 
follow  the  Talmndic  and  Eabbinic  name  nii'^p  which 
describes  the  nature  of  its  contents.  The  Septuagint 
renders  this  name  dpr^vot  'hpe/iiou,  which  in  the  Vulgate 
is  transliterated  Threni  and  by  the  Fathers  was  trans- 
lated Lamentationes  Jeremiae.  The  English  name  is 
derived  from  the  Latin. 

II.  Structure.  The  book  contains  five  distinct  ele- 
gies corresponding  to  the  five  chapters.  In  the  first 
four  the  arrangement  is  alphabetical.  Thus  in  chapters 
1  and  2  one  verse  is  given  to  each  letter  of  the  Hebrew 
alphabet  in  regular  order  and  the  verses  consist  of  three 
parts  each.  In  chapter  3  three  verses  are  given  to  each 
letter  but  the  verses  consist  of  but  one  member ;  and  in 
chapter  4  one  verse  is  given  to  each  letter,  the  verses 
consisting  of  two  members.  The  alphabetic  arrange- 
ment of  chapters  2-4  is  broken  in  each  case  by  the  trans- 
position of  the  letters  V  and  2.  No  satisfactory  explana- 
tion of  this  has  been  offered.  Chapter  5  drops  the 
alphabetic  arrangement  although  it  has  twenty-two 
verses. 

III.  Author. 

1.  Traditional  Opinion.  Until  modern  times  Jeremiah 
was  universally  conceded  to  be  the  author  of  the  book. 
The  book  itself  does  not  contain  his  name.    The  Sep- 

296 


LAMEXTATIONS  297 

tuagint  prefixes  this  sentence:  ''And  it  came  to  pass 
after  Israel  was  led  into  captivity,  and  Jerusalem  laid 
waste,  that  Jeremiah  sat  weeping,  and  lamented  with 
this  lamentation  over  Jerusalem  and  said :  "  These  words 
are  thought  by  some  to  have  been  in  the  Hebrew  original 
from  which  the  Septuagint  was  made.  Though  such  a 
conclusion  is  not  warranted,  the  statement  presents  a 
very  early  tradition.  The  same  preface  is  found  in  the 
Vulgate,  with  the  addition,  "  and  in  bitterness  of  heart 
sighing  and  crying  said : "  The  Targum  and  Peshitta 
likewise  assign  the  book  to  Jeremiah. 

Much  confusion  has  been  caused  by  referring  II 
Chron.  35:25  to  this  book.  There  we  read:  "And 
Jeremiah  lamented  for  Josiah :  and  all  the  singing  men 
and  the  singing  women  spake  of  Josiah  in  their  lamen- 
tations to  this  day :  and  behold  thgy  are  \\Titten  in  the 
lamentations"  (  niripn-^'j;  ).  It  is  insisted  by  certain 
radical  critics  that  this  refers  to  the  canonical  book  of 
Lamentations  and  that  the  Chronicler  erroneously 
thought  from  2 :  7  and  4:20  that  this  book  was  the 
dirge  of  Jeremiah  over  Josiah. 

Answer. — A  careful  reading  of  the  book  shows  that 
it  is  not  at  all  appropriate  as  a  dirge  for  Josiah.  It  is 
hardly  conceivable  that  the  Chronicler  could  have  been 
so  ignorant  of  the  contents  of  this  canonical  book. 
The  book  of  Lamentations  to  which  he  referred  was 
totally  distinct  from  the  one  before  us.  Apparently 
it  contained  the  lamentations  of  the  singing  men  and 
women  as  well  as  those  of  Jeremiah  and  may  have  been 
an  extensive  collection  of  dirges  for  use  at  funerals. 
Josephus  probably  refers  to  this  extra-canonical  book 
when  he  says  (Antiq.  10:5):  "Jeremiah  composed  a 
dirge  for  Josiah's  funeral  which  remains  unto  this  day." 


298     OLD    TESTAMENT    IXTRODUCTION" 

It  is  incredible  that  Josephus  was  so  ignorant  of  the 
contents  of  the  canonical  book  that  he  thought  it  a  dirge 
for  Josiah's  funeral.  But  even  though  the  passages 
in  Chronicles  and  in  Josephus  do  not  refer  to  our  book, 
they  confirm  the  tradition  that  Jeremiah  composed 
dirges.  And  if  Jeremiah  was  preeminent  in  this  form 
of  poetry,  what  is  more  probable  than  that  he  wrote  this 
l)Ook?  Even  Cornill  admits  that  the  authorship  of 
Jeremiah  possesses  a  certain  probability. 

An  examination  of  the  book  itself  and  a  comparison  of 
it  with  the  prophecy  of  Jeremiah  strongly  confirms  the 
traditional  view.  In  form  of  expression  as  well  as  in 
general  argument  it  has  many  points  in  common  with 
the  prophecy. 

Driver  mentions  the  following  similarities  (p.  462)  : 

Lam.  1:2 '.  .compare Jor.   30 :  14 

"      1:86-9 "      "      13:226.26 

"      1:1G«      )  (    "        9:1,18& 

"      2:11a      >■••••        "      ..J     <^      13:176 
«      3:48-49  3  I    "      l-i'-l^ 


«  2  :  11  I 
"  3:48  y 
"      4  :  10  I 


"        6:14 


8:11,21 


"^  r  "        2:8 

«      2:14   [  ,,  J    "        5:31 

J  L  "      23 :  11 


**      2:201 

"     4:10] 


"      "      19:9 


«      ,.00                          «             f   "        6:25 
«     3:14 "      "     20:7 


LAMEXTATIOXS  299 


r.  9:15 
23:15 
48:43 
16:16& 
25:15 
49:12 
13 :  185 


Lam. 

3:15 

compare . . . 

{"" 

te 

3:47 

t( 

i( 

<( 
<( 

3:52 

4:21&.... 

<( 

tc 

5:16 

cc 

iC 

2.  Critical  Opinion.  The  majority  of  modern  critics, 
while  they  acknowledge  the  force  of  these  arguments, 
deny  that  Jeremiah  wrote  this  book.  They  think  it  was 
the  product  of  his  time  or  soon  after  and  some  suggest 
that  its  author  may  have  been  a  follower  of  Jeremiah, 
so  familiar  is  he  with  the  book  of  that  prophet.  The 
arguments  of  these  critics  are  as  follows: 

A.  The  position  of  the  book  among  the  Kethubim 
militates  against  Jeremiah's  authorship. 

Answer. — It  has  been  shown  in  the  chapter  on  the 
canon  that  Lamentations  was  not  always  reckoned 
among  the  Kethubim  but  was  placed  there  as  one  of  the 
five  Megilloth  which  are  arranged  in  our  Hebrew 
Bibles  in  the  order  of  their  liturgical  use,  Lamentations 
being  read  in  the  synagogue  on  the  ninth  of  Ab  in 
commemoration  of  the  destruction  of  the  temple. 

B.  Several  passages  are  said  to  be  very  strange  if 
written  by  Jeremiah. 

"  Her  prophets  also  find  no  vision  from  the  Lord '' 
(2:9). 

^^5^er.— This  passage  is  not  as  strong  a  condemna- 
tion  of  false  prophets  as  Jeremiah  gave  in  his  prophecy 
(14:14;  23:16). 

"  In  our  watching,  we  have  watched  for  a  nation  that 
could  not  save  us ''  (4 :  17) .    The  author  is  said  to  class 


300     OLD    TESTAMEN'T    IXTEODUCTIO:^" 

himself  here  with  the  party  in  Israel  who  sought  help 
from  Egypt  while  Jeremiah  always  opposed  such  a 
course. 

Answer. — The  author  does  not  however  identify  him- 
self with  this  party  but  with  the  nation  in  which  the 
party  was  predominant  just  as  a  member  of  the  minority 
in  congress  might  say :  "  We  did  so  and  so  "  although 
he  voted  against  the  action. 

The  reference  to  Zedekiah  as,  "the  breath  of  our 
nostrils  "  and  "  the  anointed  of  the  Lord  "  (Lam.  4 : 
20)  is  said  to  be  inconsistent  with  Jeremiah's  prophecy 
concerning  him  in  Jer.  24 :  8-10. 

Answer. — Such  terms  are  quite  usual  in  reference  to 
the  rightful  king  of  the  Davidic  line.  David  repeatedly 
spoke  of  Saul  as  "the  Lord's  anointed"  even  after 
Saul's  rejection  and  while  he  was  persecuting  him  (I 
Sam.  24:6,  10;  26:9,  11,  16,  23;  II  Sam.  1:14,  16). 
It  seems  to  have  been  a  common  title  of  the  king  (II 
Sam.  19:21).  Although  Zedekiah  was  appointed  king 
by  Xebuchadnezzar  (II  Kings  24:17;  Jer.  37:1),  he 
belonged  to  the  royal  line  as  a  son  of  Josiah  (Jer. 
37:1).  Jeremiah  doubtless  had  set  his  hopes  upon 
Zedekiah  when  he  first  became  king.  He  therefore  calls 
him  "the  breath  of  our  nostrils."  This  hope  was 
disappointed. 

C.  The  vocabulary  of  the  author  of  Lamentations 
contains  several  words  not  found  in  Jeremiah,  some  of 
them  expressing  ideas  for  which  Jeremiah  uses  other 
words.  Such  are  ^5^  (Lam.  1 :  3,  7,  9 ;  3  : 1,  19) ;  DDiK> 
(1:4,  13,  16;  3:11);  njj  (1:4,  5,  12;  3:32-33)  D^sn 
(1:11-12;  3:63;  4:16;  5:1);  ^Ji«  (alone  1:14,  15; 
2  :  1,  2,  5,  7,  18,  19,  20b ;  3  :  31,  36,  37,  38)  ;  ^^)V  (1 :  22 ; 


LAMENTATIONS  301 

2 :  30;  3  :  51)  ;y^3  (2  :  2,  5,  8,  16)  ;  mj  (2 :  7;  3 :  17,  31) ; 
K^ (shorter  relative  2: 15,  16;  4:9;  5:18);   V^IJ>    (3:8). 

Answer.— The  poetic  nature  of  Lamentations  is  the 
chief  cause  of  these  variations  from  the  prophecy.  The 
points  of  agreement  are  so  many  that  the  diction  favors 
the  traditional  view  of  authorship  more  than  the  modern 
critical  view. 

D.  Cornill  lays  great  stress  upon  certain  allusions  in 
Lamentations  to  Ezekiel. 


2:14. 


{;: 


Lam.  2:1   compare.  .Ezek.  43  :  7 

2:4 "      ..    "      24:16,21,25 

13 
22:28 

2:15 «      ..    «      27:3 

'     4:6   "      ..    «       16:46/ 

'     4:20 «      ..    "       19:4,8 

Answer. — An  examination  of  these  parallels  does  not 
warrant  the  conclusion  of  the  critics.  Jeremiah  may 
have  used  the  expressions  independently  of  Ezekiel. 
If  however  the  argument  be  pressed  it  does  not  disprove 
that  Jeremiah  wrote  the  Lamentations.  For  Jeremiah 
was  a  contemporary  of  Ezekiel  and  the  colony  of  exiles 
on  the  river  Chebar  probably  were  in  communication 
with  those  who  remained  in  Judah  after  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem.  If  so  Jeremiah  may  have  been  acquainted 
with  the  prophecies  of  Ezekiel. 

IV.  Unity.  Several  modern  critics  attack  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  book,  although  they  disagree  radically 
concerning  the  proper  division.  Some  assign  chapter  3 
to  a  different  author,  others  chapters  1  and  3,  and  others 
still  chapters  1,  3  and  5.    They  contend  that  one  author 


302     OLD    TESTAMENT    IXTRODUCTION 

would  not  have  written  several  poems  on  the  same 
subject,  that  certain  chapters  (2  and  4)  are  superior  to 
the  others,  and  that  the  different  alphabetic  arrangement 
indicates  difference  of  authorship. 

Answer. — ^It  was  precisely  in  accord  with  Hebrew 
usage  to  emphasize  a  subject  by  repetition.  Certain 
passages  in  the  writings  of  any  author  are  superior  to 
others.  The  differences  in  the  alphabetic  arrangement 
may  indicate  a  lack  of  fixedness  in  the  order  of  the 
letters  V  and  2  in  Jeremiah's  time.  The  use  of  the 
same  phrases  and  words  throughout  the  book  is  proof 
of  unity  of  authorship. 

V.     Divisions. 

1.  Zion  forsaken  and  sorrowing.    Chapter  1. 

2.  The  desolation  described  with  exhortation  and 
prayer.     Chapter  2. 

3.  The  prophet  suffers  with  Zion  and  yet  hopes. 
Chapter  3. 

4.  The  sufferings  of  the  siege.     Chapter  4. 

5.  Prayer  for  mercy.    Chapter  5. 


IV 

ECCLESIASTES 

I.  Name.  In  Hebrew  the  book  is  named  from  the 
title  of  the  speaker  rhr\\>  (1 :  2,  12 ;  12  :  8)  a  word  whose 
exact  meaning  is  somewhat  uncertain.  It  is  Kal  active 
participle  feminine  of  the  verb  bri]^  which  is  not  found 
elsewhere  in  Kal  but  in  Hiphil  means  to  gather  an 
assembly.  If  the  Kal  be  used  with  the  same  meaning 
as  the  Hiphil,  n^np  means  "  one  who  gathers  an  assem- 
bly for  the  purpose  of  addressing  them."  The  feminine 
form  is  more  difficult  to  explain.  It  has  been  thought 
that  wisdom  (  noDPi  )  is  impersonated  in  Solomon  the 
preacher.  But  the  noun  always  takes  a  masculine  verb 
and  if  n!?np  be  feminine  in  reference  to  npsn  it  is  strange 
that  n»Dn  is  not  mentioned  as  the  speaker.  The  more 
probable  explanation  is  that  the  feminine  is  that  of  office 
like  the  Arabic  Caliphate,  and  the  German  Majestat— 
hence  one  who  holds  the  office  of  preacher. 

The  Septuagint  rendered  the  word  by  "ExxX7)ffia(7T-^^^ 
which  in  classic  Greek  means  a  member  of  the  ixxXi^<Tia, 
or  assembly  of  citizens — hence  one  who  preaches  in  the 
ixxk-Tiffia,  the  Septuagint  rendering  of  ^rtij  the  congre- 
gation of  Israel.  The  Vulgate  transliterates  the  Greek 
name  into  Ecclesiastes.  The  English  versions  name 
the  book  "  Ecclesiastes  or  the  Preacher." 

II.  Purpose.     Ecclesiastes   is   one   of   the  Wisdom 

303 


304     OLD    TESTAMENT    IKTEODUCTIOlSr 

books.  From  tlie  frequent  repetition  of  tlie  words,  "All  is 
vanity  "  and  the  general!}^  hopeless  nature  of  its  contents, 
some,  both  in  ancient  and  modern  times,  have  consid- 
ered it  a  pessimistic,  sceptical  if  not  atheistic  booli  and 
have  objected  to  its  presence  in  the  canon.  Others  have 
thought  that  it  favors  materialism  and  licentious- 
ness. 

These  objections  are  the  result  of  a  misunderstanding 
of  the  book.  Xot  only  does  the  name  of  God  occur 
many  times  in  it  but  His  creation  and  rulership  of  the 
world  are  taken  for  granted  (2:24,  26;  3:  11,  14,  17, 
etc.).  The  fear  of  God,  which  is  the  Old  Testament 
conception  of  religion,  is  made  the  prime  duty  of  man 
(5:7;  12:13)  a  duty  which  does  not  go  unrewarded 
(7: 18;  8: 12).  The  expectation  of  a  divine  judgment 
is  found  in  the  book  (11:  9;  12  :  14).  The  attitude  of 
the  author  toward  the  future  is  not  that  of  the  sceptic 
but  of  one  to  whom  almost  nothing  concerning  the 
future  life  was  revealed.  All  his  arguments  are  based 
upon  his  observation  of  this  world.  He  speaks  only  of 
that  which  is  done  "  under  the  sun  "  and  "  under  the 
heavens,'^  for  that  is  all  he  knows.  To  judge  the  book 
according  to  the  standard  of  New  Testament  revelation 
is  absurd  and  unjust.  Yet  the  author  extols  the  things 
which  are  morally  good  in  this  world  such  as  going  to 
the  house  of  God  (4: 17),  paying  vows  to  Him  (5 :  4-5), 
having  a  good  reputation  (7:1)  and  exercising  patience 
(7:8-9).    Licentiousness  is  condemned  (7:26). 

The  author  was  facing  a  problem  which  he  had  not 
light  enough  to  solve.  He  saw  much  injustice  in  the 
world.  Apparently  the  wicked  often  went  unpunished 
and  the  righteous  died  unrewarded.  Yet  in  the  face 
of  this  mystery  the  author  does  not  charge  God  with 


ECCLESIASTES  305 

injustice.  He  simply  says  that  God's  ways  are  inscru- 
table (8  :  17 ;  11 :  5).  He  trusts  that  eventually  in  some 
way  these  wrongs  shall  be  righted.  This  train  of  thought 
is  specially  prominent  in  3 :  17-18  and  5:8.  If  he  ex- 
horts his  hearers  not  to  be  righteous  overmuch  (7: 16), 
he  uses  the  term  righteous  in  the  sense  of  perform- 
ing all  the  external  requirements  of  religion,  for  imme- 
diately he  speaks  of  the  deliverance  of  him  that  feareth 
God  (7 :  18).  The  plain  exhortation  to  religion  (12  :  1) 
and  the  summary  of  man's  duty  "  to  fear  God  and  keep 
His  commandments''  (12:13-1-1)  show  that  the  book 
is  not  below  the  Old  Testament  standard  of  piety  nor 
the  Old  Testament  doctrine  of  a  future  life.  Indeed 
by  revealing  the  injustice  of  this  world  and  by  creating 
a  dissatisfaction  with  it,  the  book  presented  to  the  Old 
Testament  saints  a  strong  argument  for  a  future  life 
and  a  strong  motive  to  fear  God.  To  the  Christian  it 
is  still  valuable  since  it  shows  that  even  worldly  wisdom 
recognizes  the  advantage  of  a  moral  life,  and  of  oJDedi- 
ence  to  God  as  the  result  of  experience,  and  by  its  very 
imperfection  it  ^hows  the  necessity  of  the  ISTew  Testa- 
ment revelation. 

III.    Author. 

1.  Solomonic  Authorship.  The  name  of  the  author 
is  not  mentioned  in  the  book.  Yet  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  by  "  the  son  of  David,  king  in  Jerusalem  " 
(1:1,  12)  none  other  than  Solomon  is  meant.  That 
no  other  royal  descendant  of  David  can  be  intended  is 
apparent  from  the  references  to  Solomon's  incompar- 
able wisdom  (1:16)  and  the  great  works  which  he 
made  (2:1-11).  It  is  strange  that  these  allusions  to 
Solomon  end  with  the  second  Chapter.  Yet  the  char- 
acter of  the  entire  book  which  resembles  the  work  of  the 


306      OLD    TESTAMENT    IXTUODUCTIOX 

wise  king  in  the  book  of  Proverbs  is  in  agreement  with 
those  references. 

According  to  these  indications  Ecclesiastes  was  as- 
signed to  Solomon  bv  the  uniform  consent  of  all  Jewish 
and  Christian  scholars  until  the  Eeformation  period. 
It  was  considered  the  work  of  his  old  age.  A  Hebrew 
legend,  which  was  probably  formed  to  account  for  this 
book,  is  preserved  in  the  Targum.  It  affirms  that  in  his 
old  age  God  drove  Solomon  from  his  throne  because  of 
his  foreign  alliances,  and  that  an  angel  whose  face 
resembled  Solomon's  was  placed  upon  his  throne.  The 
aged  king  wandered  up  and  dovv^n  in  Palestine  lamenting 
his  folly  and  crying  out :  "  I  am  Koheleth,  whose  name 
was  formerly  called  Solomon,  who  was  king  over  Israel 
in  Jerusalem."  This  legend  was  thought  to  account 
for  the  absence  of  Solomon's  name  and  his  saying  "  I 
was  king  in  Jerusalem  "  (1 :  12),  as  though  he  had  then 
ceased  to  be  king,  while  Solomon  retained  the  throne 
till  his  death.  There  are  still  a  few  who  believe  in  the 
Solomonic  authorship,  though  the  overwhelming  weight 
of  authority,  both  conservative  and  radical,  is  against  it. 

2.  Solomon  Impersonated.  Luther  seems  to  have 
been  the  first  to  deny  that  Solomon  wrote  this  book. 
He  was  followed  by  Hugo  Grotius  and  in  the  past  cen- 
tury hardly  a  T\Titer  of  eminence  has  attempted  to  de- 
fend the  older  opinion.  Even  such  conservative  theo- 
logians as  Hengstenberg,  Delitzsch,  and  C.  H.  H.  Wright 
have  denied  that  Solomon  was  the  author.  The  -^Titer 
impersonated  Solomon  or  as  Bradley  expressed  it  he 
"  chose  the  title  of  the  king  around  whose  memory  clus- 
tered innumerable  assocations  as  the  great  sage  and 
philosopher  of  the  Hebrew  race;  one  whose  name  had 
become  the  very  ty^pe  of  human  wisdom,  combined  with 


ECCLESIASTES  307 

human  sadness  and  frailty  "  (Ecclesiastes  p.  21).  Such 
a  literary  device  does  not  imply  deception.  The  writer 
depicts  Solomon's  views  concerning  life,  from  the  van- 
tage ground  of  his  completed  reign.  That  Solomon  is 
not  represented  as  the  actual  author  but  only  as  the 
pseudonym  which  the  author  takes  is  evident. 

A.  The  name,  Solomon,  does  not  occur  in  the  book, 
as  would  almost  certainly  be  the  case  if  he  were  the 
author.  The  title  Koheleth  is  a  very  unnatural  one  in 
the  mouth  of  the  king. 

B.  The  past  tense :  "  I  was  king  over  Israel  in  Jeru- 
salem (1:  1:2)  points  in  the  same  direction.  It  is  true 
that  this  verb  might  mean:  "I  have  been  (and  still 
am)  king,"  but  it  would  be  much  more  natural  to  omit 
the  verb  entirely  if  the  present  tense  were  intended. 
Since  Solomon  remained  king  till  his  death,  this  state- 
ment could  hardly  have  been  written  by  him  but  is  quite 
natural  in  the  mouth  of  the  one  who  impersonates  the 
king. 

C.  The  expression  "  all  who  were  before  me  in  Jeru- 
salem'' (1: 16;  2:  7),  implies  a  later  writer  than  Solo- 
mon. The  reference  is  to  kings  rather  than  princes  or 
wise  men,  and  since  only  David  reigned  in  Jerusalem 
before  him  it  would  be  a  very  strange  expression  for  Solo- 
mon. The  suggestion  that  he  refers  to  Melchizedek  and 
Adonizedek  is  very  fanciful.  But  if  these  are  words  of 
a  writer  long  after  Solomon's  time  they  admit  of  an 
easy  explanation. 

3.  Evidences  of  Date  Later  than  Solomon. 

A.  The  whole  atmosphere  of  the  book  is  totally  dif- 
ferent from  that  of  Solomon's  time.  The  time  of  Solo- 
mon was  one  of  widespread  prosperity  in  Palestine  (I 
Kings  4:25).     The  book  of  Ecclesiastes  on  the  other 


308      OLD    TESTAMEXT    INTRODUCTION 

hand  presupposes  a  time  of  misfortune,  t}Tanny,  and 
oppression  (4:1-3;  5:8;  7:10;  8:9;  10:6-7).  If 
Txing  Solomon  had  kno\sTi  of  such  injustice  in  his  king- 
dom as  this  author  reveals,  he  would  certainly  have 
rectified  it.  And  if  the  oppression  is  simply  that  which 
resulted  from  the  hea^7  taxation  to  carry  out  Solomon's 
great  works  (I  Kings  12  :  11,  14)  it  is  inconceivable  that 
Solomon  would  speak  of  the  oppression  in  the  manner 
of  Koheleth.  Indeed  the  way  the  author  speaks  of 
kings  and  especially  of  "  the  king  "  shows  that  he  was 
not  a  king  himself  but  a  subject  and  that  too  of  a 
tyrannical  king  (-1:13;  8:2;  9:11-16;  10:16-17,  20). 

B.  Equally  overwhelming  is  the  evidence  from  the 
language.  Delitzsch  has  collected  a  list  of  96  forms, 
words,  and  expressions  in  Ecclesiastes  which  are  either 
found  only  in  that  book  outside  of  the  Targums  and 
Mishna  or  are  foimd  elsewhere  only  in  such  late  books 
as  Ezekiel,  Esther,  Ezra,  Xehemiah,  Chronicles,  and 
Malachi  (Commentary  pp.  190-196).  ^\Tiile  a  small 
number  of  such  words  is  not  inconsistent  with  an  early 
date,  their  number  in  Ecclesiastes  is  so  large  that  the 
conclusion  of  late  date  is  irresistible. 

While  all  critics  who  deny  the  Solomonic  authorship 
consider  the  book  post-exilic  there  is  considerable  diverg- 
ence in  the  matter  of  date.  Delitzsch,  Wright,  Cheyne 
in  his  "Job  and  Solomon''  and  others  adhere  to  the 
late  Persian  period  (approaching  332  B.  C.)  while 
Driver,  Plumptre,  Cornill  and  others  prefer  a  date 
about  200  B.C.  The  chief  point  of  dispute  is  whether 
there  are  Grsecisms  in  the  book  or  traces  of  the  influence 
of  the  Greek  philosophy.  Certain  writers  find  traces  of 
Stoicism  in  the  doctrine  of  cycles  (3:  1-8)  and  in  the 
fatalism  of  the  book,  and  of  Epicureanism  in  its  com- 


ECCLESIASTES  309 

parison  of  men  to  beasts  and  consideration  of  pleasure 
as  the  highest  good.  All  these  phenomena  may  be 
accounted  for  as  of  Hebrew  origin.  Even  Eenan  denied 
that  the  book  contains  traces  of  Greek  philosophy  al- 
though he  assigned  it  to  125  B.C.  The  theory  of  Graetz 
that  Ecclesiastes  was  composed  by  Herod  the  Great  in 
B.C.  4  is  disproved  by  the  allusions  to  it  in  Ecclesiasti- 
cus  (B.C.  170)  and  by  the  presence  of  Ecclesiastes  in 
the  Septuagint. 

All  the  facts  of  the  book  are  adequately  explained  by 
assigning  it  as  Hengstenberg  does  to  the  time  of  Malachi 
(about  433  B.C.).  The  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
give  evidence  of  the  very  political  corruption  and  oppres- 
sion which  are  reflected  in  Ecclesiastes  (Ezra  4 :  5 ;  9  :  7 ; 
Neh.  1:3;  5:4,  5,  18;  9:36-37).  The  capriciousness 
of  the  monarch  in  the  book  of  Esther  is  of  the  same 
sort.  Hengstenberg  also  points  out  that  "  we  encounter 
here,  as  in  Malachi  that  moroseness  which  ever  accom- 
panies unspiritual  religion  and  soulless  morality  "  ( Com- 
mentary p.  6).  Formalism  was  characteristic  of  the 
religion  after  the  Exile.  There  is  then  nothing  in  the 
political  conditions  presupposed  by  this  book  or  its 
language  which  requires  a  date  later  than  400  B.C.  And 
if  this  date  be  correct  it  is  among  the  latest  books  of  the 
Old  Testament. 

IV.  Integrity.  The  general  integrity  of  the  book 
is  universally  acknowledged.  Certain  critics  however 
consider  a  few  verses  to  have  been  later  additions.  The 
epilogue  (12:9-14)  is  suspected  by  many.  The  first 
part  (9-12)  of  it  is  rejected  because  without  it  the  book 
begins  and  ends  with  the  same  statement  and  because  it 
speaks  of  Koheleth  as  a  wise  man  while  elsewhere  he  is 
represented  as  a  king.    There  is  no  reason  however  why 


310      OLD    TESTAMENT    IXTEODUCTIOX 

the  book  should  be  forced  to  end  with  the  same  state- 
ment wdth  which  it  begins.  Solomon  was  the  founder 
of  the  school  of  wise  men  as  well  as  king.  Krochmal 
considers  the  epilogue  (12:  9-14)  to  have  been  added  as 
a  concluding  statement  for  the  entire  Kethubim  and 
that  verse  12  refers  to  the  admission  of  this  and  the 
other  Antilcgomena  into  the  canon.  This  fanciful  theory 
lias  not  met  with  acceptance.  It  is  sufficiently  refuted 
l)y  the  fact  that  Ecclesiastes  never,  so  far  as  we  know, 
stood  at  the  end  of  the  Old  Testament  canon. 

The  objection  to  the  remainder  of  the  epilogue  (12: 
13-14)  as  well  as  to  several  other  brief  passages  (3: 17; 
7:5;  8: 12-13;  11:  9b;  12:1a,  7b)  is  that  they  display 
a  higher  religious  tone  than  that  which  pervades  the 
remainder  of  the  book.  Many  affirm  that  these  passages 
were  inserted  with  the  purpose  of  saving  the  orthodoxy 
of  the  book  and  that  then  it  was  admitted  to  the  canon. 
It  is  noteworthy,  on  the  other  hand,  that  so  radical  a 
critic  as  Cornill  opposes  the  removal  of  these  passages 
and  asserts  that  the  same  thoughts  run  throughout  the 
book.  The  objections  to  these  passages  proceed  from 
the  false  assumption  that  the  book  is  sceptical.  If 
rightly  understood,  they  do  not  contradict  other  state- 
ments of  the  author  and  their  removal  destroys  the 
completeness  of  the  argument. 

V.     Divisions. 

The  vain  things.  The  good  things. 

Labor  1 :  3-11 

Wisdom  1 :  12-18 

Pleasure  2 :  1-11  Wisdom  better  than  folly  2  :  12-26 

Effort  3 :  1-15 


ECCLESIASTES 


311 


The  vain  things. 

Justice  3  :  16  to  4 :  3 
Skill  4:4-12 
Power  4:13-16 
Formalism  5 : 1-7 
Wealth  5  :  8  to  6  :  12 
Fortune  8: 16  to  9 :  6,  11-16 
Aristocracy  9:17  to  10:11 
Folly  10 :  12-15 
A  young  King  10 :  16-20 


The  good  things. 


'A  good  name  7 : 1-10 
Wisdom  7  :  11  to  8 :  9 
Piety  8 :  10-15 
Joy  9 :  7-10 
Enterprise  11:  1-14 
Youth  11 :  9-10 
Piety  in  youth  12 : 1-14 


ESTHER 

I.  Name.  The  book  is  named  from  its  principal 
character.  In  the  Tahnud  it  is  called  l^pi<  n^:D  or 
more  simply  "iripx.  The  Hebrew  name  of  Esther  was 
•^$?l5  (^-  '^)  which  means  "myrtle."  This  was  changed 
to  the  Persian  name  "iJ^pK  which  means  "  star,"  when 
she  became  the  queen  of  Ahasuerus.  In  the  Septuagint 
the  name  is  'Ead-qp^  and  in  the  Vulgate,  as  in  the  English, 
Esther. 

II.  Historicity.  Many  critics  deny  the  credibility 
of  this  book,  while  many  others  think  that  although  it 
has  a  historical  basis,  the  author  has  been  guilty  of 
exaggeration  and  enlargement  upon  the  facts.  The 
arguments  against  the  reliability  of  the  story  are  as 
follows : 

1.  There  are  said  to  be  several  improbabilities  in  the 
book. 

A.  History  knows  nothing  of  any  queen  of  Xerxes 
between  the  7th  and  12th  years  of  his  reign  besides 
Amestris,  whose  cruelty  and  superstition  as  represented 
by  Herodotus  preclude  her  identification  with  Esther. 
Nor  could  Esther  have  been  one  of  the  women  of  the 
royal  harem,  for  she  is  mentioned  as  queen  (2  :  16-17). 

Answer. — The  representations  concerning  Esther  agree 
remarkably  with  the  history  of  the  reign  of  Xerxes. 
Vashti  was  divorced  in  the  third  year  of  his  reign 
(1:3)    and   Esther   did  not  become   queen  until   the 

31? 


ESTHER  313 

seventh  year  (2:16).  This  interval  agrees  precisely 
with  the  statements  of  Herodotus  that  Xerxes  began 
his  Greek  campaign  in  the  third  year  and  in  the  seventh 
year  sought  relief  from  his  defeat  in  the  harem.  Since 
the  book  of  Esther  does  not  inform  us  concerning  the 
date  of  Esther's  death  although  she  lived  till  the  twelfth 
year  of  the  king's  reign  (3:7)  while  the  king  reigned 
twenty  years  in  all,  there  remain  eight  years  during 
which  Amestris  may  have  been  queen  without  inter- 
fering with  the  story  of  Esther.  In  our  ignorance 
concerning  the  facts  there  is  no  necessity  of  casting 
discredit  upon  the  Bible  record. 

B.  The  issuing  of  the  decree  for  the  destruction  of 
the  Jews  eleven  months  in  advance,  the  ignorance  of 
the  king  that  Esther  was  a  Jewess,  his  ignorance  con- 
cerning his  own  decree  (7:5-6),  his  allowing  the  Jews 
to  defend  themselves,  their  success  against  overwhelm- 
ing odds  and  the  height  of  the  gallows  (fifty  cubits 
5 :  14)  are  said  to  be  very  improbable. 

Ansiver. — Truth  is  often  stranger  than  fiction. 
Mere  improbability  is  not  sufficient  reason  to  discredit 
a  story.  The  ignorance  of  the  king  concerning  Esther's 
nationality  may  have  been  due  to  her  lack  of  the  usual 
Jewish  features  or  to  his  drunkenness  at  the  time  when 
he  saw  her.  The  latter  point  is  sufficient  explanation 
of  his  ignorance  concerning  the  decree  (7:7).  The 
capriciousness  of  the  king  and  his  affection  for  Esther 
make  the  second  decree  not  unnatural.  Our  inability 
to  account  for  the  other  statements  is  certainly  no  proof 
that  they  are  false.  There  is  nothing  incredible  in  the 
statement  that  the  gallows  was  75  feet  high.  History 
records  many  instances  of  a  small  but  determined  band 
defending  themselves  successfully  against  great  odds. 


314      OLD    TESTAMEXT    IXTRODUCTIOX 

2.  The  dramatic  elements  in  the  book  are  said  to 
mark  it  as  a  romance  rather  than  history.  These  are 
particularly  the  contrast  of  Haman  and  Mordecai,  the 
two  decrees,  the  hanging  of  Haman  on  the  gallows  he 
prepared  for  his  enemy,  and  the  climax  of  the  story 
in  the  victory  of  the  Jews.  These  and  similar  points 
have  given  weight  to  the  theory  that  the  book  is  a  story 
written  to  show  the  prowess  of  the  Jews. 

Ansiver. — Precisely  such  coincidences  sometimes  occur 
and  the  very  fact  that  they  are  unusual  suggests  their 
being  recorded.  The  most  that  this  argument  can  prove 
is  that  the  author  seized  upon  the  dramatic  features  in 
these  remarkable  experiences  of  the  Jews  for  the  purpose 
stated. 

On  the  other  hand  there  are  powerful  arguments  in 
favor  of  the  truthfulness  of  the  narrative. 

(1)  The  feast  of  Purim,  whose  origin  is  described 
in  the  book  is  still  observed.  In  II  Mace.  15 :  36 
this  feast  is  called  "the  day  of  Mordecai.^'  Xo  other 
satisfactory  explanation  of  this  feast  has  been  pre- 
sented. 

(2)  Ahasuerus  is  represented  as  just  such  a  passion- 
ate, capricious,  and  profligate  monarch  as  Xerxes. 

(3)  The  book  is  free  from  the  historical  inaccuracies 
such  as  are  found  in  the  Apocryphal  books  of  Tobit  and 
Judith.  It  presents  the  life  at  the  Persian  court  as  it 
is  known  from  secular  history. 

(4)  The  story  is  presented  as  literal  history  since  it 
refers  to  the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Persia  (2:23; 
6:1;  10:2). 

III.  Purpose.  Many  in  ancient  and  modern  times 
have  objected  to  the  presence  of  this  book  in  the  canon 
for  two  principal  reasons : 


ESTHER  315 

1.  N"ot  only  has  the  book  no  religious  purpose  but 
the  name  of  God  does  not  occur  in  it. 

Answer.— The  reason  for  the  absence  of  the  divine 
name  from  the  book  is  unknown.  It  seems  to  have  been 
purposely  omitted,  though  the  author  points  out  the 
remarkable  way  in  which  Jehovah  saved  the  Jews  from 
destruction.  Providence  is  alluded  to  in  4 :  14  while 
fasting  is  mentioned  in  4:  16  and  9:  31  and  prayer  in 
9:31.  It  should  be  remembered  that  the  history  of 
Israel  was  considered  religious  especially  at  such  a  crisis 
as  this.  The  fact  that  the  feast  of  Purim  to  this  day 
commemorates  that  deliverance  shows  the  religious 
character  of  the  book. 

2.  It  is  objected  that  the  book,  contrary  to  the  spirit 
of  scripture,  exalts  cruelty  and  vengeance.  Esther's 
request  that  the  bodies  of  Haman's  sons  be  exposed  upon 
the  gallows  (9:13)  and  especially  the  acquiescence  of 
Esther  and  Mordecai  in  the  king's  cruel  decree  to  allow 
the  slaughter  of  innocent  women  and  children  (8:8, 
11)  and  the  massacre  of  75,000  persons  are  said  to  be 
contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  gospel. 

Answer.— It  is  not  necessary  to  defend  Esther,  Mor- 
decai, or  the  Jews.  Their  acts  are  in  accord  with  the 
spirit  of  the  times  and  of  the  Oriental  court.  Any 
more  humane  conduct  would  probably  have  resulted  in 
the  annihilation  of  the  Jews.  In  no  case  is  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  book  endangered. 

The  purpose  of  the  book  of  Esther  is  to  show  God's 
protection  of  His  people  in  a  strange  land,  thus  at  tlie 
same  time  recording  the  origin  of  one  of  their  principal 
feasts. 

IV.  Date  and  Authorship.  Xerxes  who  is  uni- 
versally conceded  to  have  been  the  Ahasuerus  of  this 


316      OLD    TESTAMENT    INTRODUCTION 

book  reigned  485-465  B.C.  The  book  speaks  of  this 
monarch  as  though  his  reign  was  not  very  recent  (1:1). 
Yet  the  author  displays  a  noteworthy  acquaintance  with 
Persian  customs  and  history.  The  diction  of  the  book 
is  admittedly  late  and  is  comparable  with  that  of 
Ecclesiastes,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Chronicles. 

From  these  facts,  those  who  admit  the  historicity  of 
the  book  place  it  during  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  Longi- 
manus  (464-425  B.C.).  This  date  accounts  for  all  its 
literary  phenomena.  Many  critics  however  who  deny 
its  historicity,  place  it  in  the  Greek  period  (third  cen- 
tury B.C.)  or  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees  (167-130 
B.C.).  Their  only  arguments  are  found  in  the  alleged 
late  dates  of  other  books,  with  which  its  diction  ma^ks 
it  as  contemporaneous. 

The  majority  of  critics  agree  that  the  author  was  a 
Persian  Jew,  on  account  of  the  absence  of  marks  of  its 
being  written  in  Palestine.  The  suggestion  from  Mor- 
decai^s  writing  (9:20-32)  that  he  was  the  author  does 
not  agree  with  the  internal  evidence  (9:  3-4). 

V.     Divisions. 

1.  Esther  made  queen  instead  of  Vashti,  1 : 1  to  2 :  18. 

2.  Intrigues  of  Haman  against  Mordecai  and  the 
Jews  2  :  19  to  7 :  10. 

3.  The  Jews'  deliverance  and  the  memorial  feast. 
Chapters  8-10. 


SECTION  III :    HISTOEICAL  BOOKS 
I 

DANIEL 

I.  Name.  The  book  is  named  from  its  author  and 
principal  character,  i^^^'^T*  This  name  was  borne  also 
by  the  second  son  of  David  (I  Chron.  3:1)  and  by  a 
priest  who  returned  with  Ezra  to  Judaea  (Ezra  8:2; 
Neh.  10 :  6).  Its  meaning  is  "  God  is  my  judge/'  In 
the  Septuagint  the  form  is  AavtyJ/.  and  in  the  Vulgate 
Daniel. 

II.  Authorship  and  Date. 

It  is  considered  one  of  the  most  certain  results  of 
modern  criticism  that  the  Book  of  Daniel  was  composed 
during  the  persecutions  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  (1(38- 
165  B.C.).  This  result  is  reached  by  a  two-fold  argu- 
ment—critical and  exegetical.  The  critical  argument 
attempts  to  prove  that  the  book  could  not  have  arisen 
during  the  Exile  nor  at  least  before  the  beginning  of 
the  Greek  period  (about  300  B.C.)  while  the  exegetical 
argument  makes  the  predictions  of  the  book  refer  at 
great  length  to  the  period  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  and 
thus  determines  upon  that  time  for  its  production. 

We  believe  that  all  these  arguments  can  be  success- 
fully met  and  that  other  considerations  make  tlie  tradi- 
tional view  far  more  tenable — viz.  that  the  book  was 
composed  in  the  time  of  Daniel  and  by  him. 

317 


318      OLD    TESTAMENT    IXTRODUCTIOX 

The  arguments  for  a  date  mucli  later  than  Daniel  are 
as  follows: 

1.  Historical. 

A.  The  position  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  among  the 
Kethubim  and  even  toward  the  end  of  that  last  division 
of  the  Hebrew  canon  is  said  to  prove  that  it  could  not 
have  been  in  existence  when  the  canon  of  the  Prophets 
was  closed  and  hence  not  until  long  after  the  Exile. 
Daniel  is  considered  a  prophet  by  the  critics,  and  his 
book  is  said  to  be  similar  to  that  of  Jonah  which  found  a 
place  in  the  canon  of  the  Prophets. 

Answer. — It  has  been  shown  in  the  chapter  on  the 
Canon  that  the  three-fold  division  does  not  indicate 
three  successive  stages  of  collection  but  the  position 
of  a  book  was  determined  by  the  official  status  of  its 
author.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  third  division 
of  the  canon  was  kept  open  any  later  than  the  second. 
Daniel  was  not  officially  a  prophet  tliough  he  had  the 
prophetic  gift.  Even  this  was  of  a  kind  whicli.  the 
critics  are  loudest  in  affirming,  was  merely  incidental 
to  prophecy — viz.  his  power  of  prediction.  The  re- 
semblances to  Jonah  are  entirely  superficial.  Jonah 
was  a  prophet  in  Israel  before  he  was  sent  to  Xineveh 
(II  Kings  14:25).  He  went  to  that  city  with  a  mes- 
sage of  repentance.  He  never  joined  himself  to  the 
Assyrian  Court  but  in  Jewish  exclusiveness  stayed  out- 
side of  the  city  hoping  to  see  it  destro3'ed.  Daniel 
on  the  other  hand  does  not  introduce  his  book  with  his 
own  name  as  though  his  official  status  was  important. 
He  is  represented  merely  as  one  of  the  Jewish  exiles 
who  was  joined  to  the  court  of  Babylon  and  attained 
great  honor  there  by  his  probity  and  his  power  to 
interpret  dreams.     He  lived  nearly  all  his  life  apart 


DANIEL  319 

from  his  own  nation.     Even  in  relation  to  Babylon  lie 
was  no  prophet,  no  religious  reformer. 

B.  Jesus,  the  son  of  Sirach,  who  wrote  the  Book  of 
Ecclesiasticus  (about  170  B.C.)  mentions  Isaiah,  Jere- 
miah, Ezekiel  and  collectively  the  Twelve  Minor 
Prophets  but  says  nothing  of  Daniel.  Hence  it  is 
inferred  that  the  Book  of  Daniel  was  not  extant  in  his 
time.  The  statement  of  Ecclus.  49:15  ("Neither  was 
there  a  man  born  like  unto  Joseph")  is  thought  to 
have  been  impossible  to  one  who  knew  of  Daniel  who 
certainly  was  "  like  unto  Joseph." 

Answer. — This  argument  is  very  weak,  for  the  allu- 
sion to  the  twelve  prophets  after  Isaiah,  Jeremiah  and 
Ezekiel  (Ecclus.  49:8-10)  shows  that  the  author  is 
following  the  order  of  the  Hebrew  books.  He  does  not 
mention  Daniel  because  his  book  was  not  classed  with 
the  Prophets.  The  omission  of  Daniel  in  the  list  of 
worthies  after  the  Exile  is  not  so  remarkable  as  that  of 
Ezra.  Zerubbabel,  Joshua,  the  high-priest,  and  Nehe- 
miah,  are  mentioned  but  not  Ezra.  Yet  no  one  on 
this  account  would  deny  the  existence  of  Ezra  or  his 
book.  The  statement  concerning  Joseph  is  explained 
by  the  author  himself :  "  Neither  was  there  a  man  born 
like  unto  Joseph,  a  governor  of  his  brethren,  a  stay 
of  the  people,  whose  bones  were  regarded  of  the  Lord." 
Although  Daniel  was  "  like  unto  Joseph  "  in  his  exalted 
position  at  a  heathen  court,  he  was  not  like  him  in 
these  three  respects. 

C.  The  statement  of  Dan.  1 : 1  that  Nebuchadnezzar, 
king  of  Babylon,  came  unto  Jerusalem  and  besieged 
it,  "in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim  king  of  Judah  " 
is  said  to  be  an  error  and  therefore  unlikely  from  a 
contemporary  writer.     It  is  affirmed  that  this  statement 


320      OLD    TESTAMENT    IXTEODUCTIOX 

is  inconsistent  with  Jeremiah  who  makes  the  fourth 
year  of  Jehoiakim  the  same  as  the  first  year  of  Ne- 
buchadnezzar (25:1)  and  then  speaks  of  the  coming 
of  Xebuchadnezzar  as  still  future  (25 :  8 ;  36  :  29). 

Answer. — This  statement  is  explained  by  two  simple 
facts. 

First,  in  AssjTia  and  Babylon  a  king's  reign  was 
usually  reckoned  from  the  Xew  Year's  day  after  his 
accession  but  in  Judah  often  from  the  previous  Xew 
Year's  day  (Hastings  B.D.  Yol.  I.  p.  400).  Inscriptions 
in  Babylon  are  dated  in  the  reign  of  a  king  up  to  the 
close  of  the  year  in  which  he  died.  Daniel  naturally 
follows  this  Babylonian  method  and  thus  his  "third 
year  of  Jehoiakim"  is  identical  with  Jeremiah's 
"  fourth  year." 

Second,  the  date  mentioned  by  Daniel  is  that  of  the 
starting  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  expedition  from  Babylon, 
Nebuchadnezzar  met  the  opposition  of  Pharaoh-Necho. 
It  was  not  until  after  his  victory  over  the  Egyptians 
at  Carchemish  (Jer.  46:2)  that  he  proceeded  against 
Jerusalem.  Dr.  Green  (General  Introduction,  The 
Canon,  p.  59)  draws  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  same 
verb  found  in  Dan.  1 :  1  is  used  in  Jonah  1 :  3  of  a  ship 
which  was  starting  out  for  Tarshish.  Thus  Nebu- 
chadnezzar started  for  Jerusalem  in  the  third  year  of 
Jehoiakim  according  to  the  Babylonian  reckoning  but 
arrived  in  a  later  year.  Meanwhile  Jeremiah  foretold 
his  coming. 

D.  The  term,  "Chaldeans,"  is  used  in  Daniel  (1:4; 
2:2,  10;  14:  7;  5:7;  11)  of  the  caste  of  wise  men,  a 
meaning  which  the  critics  affirm  it  did  not  have  until 
after  the  Babylonian  language  died  out  and  hence  until 
after  Daniel's  time. 


DANIEL  321 

Answer. — It  is  hard  to  prove  a  negative.  Our  knowl- 
edge of  the  Babylonian  literature  of  the  time  of  Daniel 
is  not  so  complete  that  we  can  safely  affirm  that  "  Chal- 
dean" never  meant  the  caste  of  wise  men  in  his  time. 
Indeed  Schrader  says  that  we  are  thus  far  confined  to 
Assyrian  sources  for  our  knowledge  of  the  Chaldeans. 
We  are  therefore  in  no  position  to  dispute  the  true  use 
of  the  word  in  the  Book  of  Daniel. 

E.  Belshazzar  is  called  king  and  the  son  of  Ne- 
buchadnezzar (Dan.  5  : 1,  9,  22,  30 ;  7 : 1 ;  8  : 1)  although 
the  inscriptions  speak  of  him  only  as  "  the  king's  son  " 
and  as  the  son  of  Nabonidus  who  was  a  usurper  and 
no  relation  to  Nebuchadnezzar. 

Answer. — Formerly  the  very  existence  of  Belshazzar 
was  denied.  The  discovery  of  the  Chronicles  of 
Nabonidus  with  their  frequent  mention  of  Belsharuzur 
as  "  the  king's  son  "  was  a  great  victory  for  the  accuracy 
of  Daniel.  In  these  chronicles  it  is  said  that  Belshazzar 
commanded  his  father's  troops  in  Northern  Babylonia 
in  the  early  part  of  the  reign  of  Nabonidus  while  his 
father  remained  near  Babylon.  Then  there  is  a  break 
in  the  inscription,  after  which  it  is  said  that  Nabonidus 
himself  was  with  the  troops  in  the  North.  The  natural 
inference  is  that  he  left  his  son  in  charge  in  Babylon 
and  that  his  son  was  addressed  as  king.  There  is  a 
remarkable  confirmation  of  this  conjecture  in  the  state- 
ment that  Belshazzar  made  Daniel  "the  third  ruler  of 
the  kingdom"  (Dan.  5:29),  for  since  Belshazzar  was 
himself  second  to  Nabonidus,  he  could  make  Daniel 
only  third.  The  translation  "  rule  as  one  of  three  "  in 
this  passage  does  violence  to  the  text. 

It  is  not  known  how  Belshazzar  was  the  son  of  Ne- 
buchadnezzar. The  suggestion  that  Nabonidus  may  have 


322      OLD    TESTAMENT    IXTEODUCTION 

strengthened  his  position  as  king  b}^  marrying  a  daughter 
of  the  great  king  Xebuchadnezzar  is  made  the  more 
plausible  by  the  fact  that  he  named  one  of  his  sons 
Xebuchadnezzar.  In  this  case  Belshazzar  was  the  grand- 
son of  Xebuchadnezzar  and  according  to  the  Hebrew 
usage  could  be  called  his  son. 

F.  Xo  such  character  as  Darius  the  ]\Icdc  is  known 
to  history  (5  :  31 ;  6:1).  Cyrus  took  Babylon  directly. 
Driver  suggests  that  Darius  the  Mede  was  probably  an 
error  for  Darius  Hystaspis,  who  at  a  later  time  retook 
Babylon  after  a  rebellion  while  Prince  further  suggests 
that  the  author  confuses  Babylon  with  Xineveh,  which 
was  taken  by  the  Medes. 

Answer. — Although  several  suggestions  have  been  of- 
fered concerning  the  identity  of  Darius  the  Mede,  his 
name  has  not  yet  been  found  in  the  cuneiform  inscrip- 
tions. The  cases  of  Belshazzar  and  Sargon  (Isa.  20 : 1), 
both  of  whom  were  formerly  unknown  to  history  except 
from  the  Bible,  are  sufficient  caution  against  denying 
his  existence  and  his  ruling  in  Babylon  before  Cyrus. 
The  most  probable  theory  identifies  Darius  the  Mede 
with  Gobryas,  a  Median  General  of  Cyrus,  who  took 
the  city  of  Babylon  and  who  was  so  important  that  the 
annalistic  inscription  of  Cyrus  says :  "  Gubaru,  his 
governor,  appointed  governors  in  Babylon."  What 
could  be  more  natural  than  for  C3TUS  to  cement  his 
alliance  with  the  Medes  by  leaving  their  general  as 
virtual  king  in  Babylon,  while  he  went  on  to  complete 
the  conquest  of  the  country?  If  so  the  statements  of 
Daniel  that  Darius  "received  the  kingdom"  (5:31) 
and  that  he  "was  made  king  over  the  realm  of  the 
Chaldeans"  (9:1)  receive  a  new  meaning.  The  state- 
ment of  Dan.  6 : 1  that  "  it  pleased  Darius  to  set  over 


DAXIEL  323 

the  kingdom  an  himdrcd  and  twenty  princes,  which 
should  be  over  the  whole  kingdom  also  agree  precisely 
with  that  that  "  Gubaru,  his  governor,  appointed  gov- 
ernors in  Babylon."  The  mention  of  the  Medes  and 
Persians  together  (Dan.  6:8,  12,  15)  also  confirms  the 
theory.  It  is  certainly  not  impossible  that  Gubaru  as- 
sumed the  title  of  king  and  the  name  of  Darius. 

G.  The  expression  of  9:2  that  Daniel  "  understood 
by  the  books  "  that  the  seventy  years  of  exile  were  almost 
complete,  is  said  to  imply  that  Jeremiah  was  one  of  a 
collection  of  canonical  books,  which  was  not  the  case 
in  Daniel's  time. 

Aiiswer. — ^This  expression  does  not  necessitate  a 
canon  any  more  than  Isaiah  8 :  16-20  or  34 :  16.  It 
simply  implies  that  Daniel  had  in  his  possession  the 
sacred  books  so  far  as  they  were  in  existence  and  in 
particular  Jeremiah  who  foretold  the  seventy  years  of 
exile  (Jer.  25:11-12;  29:10). 

H.  The  later  prophets  ( Haggai,  Zechariah,  and  Mala- 
chi)  show  no  trace  of  the  influence  of  Daniel  but  on 
the  other  hand  the  Apocalyptic  portions  of  Daniel  are 
said  to  have  been  suggested  by  Ezekiel  and  Zechariah. 

Answer. — It  is  just  as  natural  to  explain  the  resem- 
blances between  Daniel  on  the  one  hand  and  Ezekiel 
and  Zechariah  on  the  other  as  originating  with  Daniel 
as  with  the  other  writers.  The  lack  of  influence  of  the 
Book  of  Daniel  on  the  later  prophets  is  then  partially 
explained.  The  comparative  silence  of  those  prophets 
concerning  the  Book  of  Daniel  is  doubtless  due  to  their 
difference  of  subject  and  standpoint. 

I.  There  are  said  to  be  several  improbable  things 
in  Daniel,  which  indeed  are  not  sufficient  to  discredit 
it  but  which  add  to  the  other  arguments  against  it. 


324      OLD    TESTAMENT    mTRODUCTION 

Such  is  the  story  that  Daniel  allowed  himself  to  become 
one  of  the  wise  men,  that  he  was  accepted  as  their 
president  (2:13,  48),  Xebuchadnezzars  condemnation 
of  all  the  wise  men  before  hearing  them,  his  lycanthropy 
and  JSTebuchadnezzar^s  and  Darius'  recognition  of  the 
universal  sovereignty  of  Jehovah. 

Answer. — Since  no  great  stress  is  laid  upon  this  argu- 
ment and  since  the  other  arguments  which  are  supposed 
to  give  these  improbabilities  colour  have  been  met, 
no  detailed  answer  is  necessary.  Just  such  improbabili- 
ties are  constantly  occurring  and  their  presence  so  far 
from  discrediting  Daniel  is  as  mark  of  its  genuineness. 

2.  Literary. 

A.  Driver  enumerates  fifteen  Persian  (Daniel  in 
Cambridge  Bible  p.  Ivi)  words  in  Daniel  such  as  are 
found  in  Esther,  Ezra,  Xehemiah  and  Chronicles  and 
asserts  that  the  contract  tablets  of  the  time  of  Ne- 
buchadnezzar show  no  signs  of  Persian  influence. 

Answer. — Several  of  these  words  are  political  and 
such  as  would  not  naturally  find  their  way  into  the 
language  of  the  contract  tablets.  Such  are  D^p^'l^ 
^^  nobles''  (1:3)  m  "law"  (2:9  etc)  I?7^t^'^^; 
"satrap"  (3:2,  3,  etc.)  n.iannj^  "counsellor"  (3:2, 
3)  in^n  "minister"  (3:21,  27,  etc.)  ^^D  "presi- 
dent "  (6  :  2-4,  6-7)  and  n^NI  "  palace  "  (11 :  15).  Con- 
cerning the  others,  we  have  not  enough  literature  of 
Nebuchadnezzar's  time  to  deny  the  influence  of  Persian. 
Such  influence  would  be  felt  in  the  court  language,  where 
Daniel  was,  sooner  than  among  the  people.  Further- 
more Daniel  continued  into  the  Persian  period. 

B.  There  are  three  Greek  names  of  musical  instru- 
ments which  it  is  said  could  not  have  reached  Babylon 


DANIEL  325 

until  after  the  dissemination  of  Greek  influence  in 
Asia  by  Alexander  (332  B.C.).  These  are  xlOapt^  (3  :  5, 
7,  10,  15)  4'aXTyfpiov  (3:5,  7,  10,  15)  and  Goinpoi^na 
(3:5,  15).  Of  these  y.idapi<s  is  a  Homeric  word  and 
might  possibly  have  found  its  way  to  Babylon  by  Daniel's 
time  but  4'aXrT]p(.ov  occurs  first  in  Aristotle  (38-1-322 
B.C.)  and  aoixfcovia  is  found  first  in  Plato  (429-347 
B.C.) 

Answer. — In  reply  we  quote  the  words  of  Sayce,  who 
nevertheless  strongly  affirms  the  Maccabean  date  for 
Daniel  (Higher  Criticism  and  the  Monuments  pp.  494- 
495).  "Cuneiform  decipherment  has  made  it  ques- 
tionable whether  the  occurrence  of  words  which  may 
be  of  Greek  orgin  is  equally  certain  evidence  of  a  late 
(jate — There  were  Greek  colonies  on  the  coast  of  Pales- 
tine in  the  time  of  Hezekiah — The  Tei-el-Amarna 
tablets  have  enabled  us  to  carry  back  a  contact  between 
Greece  and  Canaan  to  a  still  earlier  period — It  is  thus 
possible  that  there  was  intercourse  and  contact  between 
the  Canaanites  or  Hebrews  in  Palestine  and  the  Greeks 
of  the  Aegean  as  far  back  as  the  age  of  Moses."  Thus 
it  is  not  at  all  improbable  that  through  the  Assyrian 
provinces  of  Asia  Minor  or  from  Palestine  itself  these 
musical  instruments  were  brought  to  Babylon.  If  the 
Jews  were  required  to  furnish  music  for  their  captors 
(Ps.  137:3)  why  may  not  captives  from  the  Greek 
lands  of  Cyprus,  Ionia,  Lydia,  and  Cilicia  have  brought 
their  musical  instruments  with  them?  The  absence 
of  two  of  these  words  from  Greek  literature  as  far  back 
as  Daniel's  time  does  not  prove  that  these  instruments 
did  not  exist  in  his  day. 

C.  The  critics  confidently  affirm  that  the  Aramaic  of 
Daniel  is  Western  Aramaic  identical  with  that  of  Ezra 


326      OLD    TESTAMEXT    IXTRODUCTIOX 

and  similar  to  that  of  Onkelos  and  Jonathan.  Aramaic 
inscriptions  from  Babylon  (725-500  B.C.)  use  the  rela- 
tive ^1  while  Daniel  uses  ^"n. 

Answer. — Other  writers  affirm  with  equal  confidence 
that  the  Aramaic  of  Daniel  and  Ezra  is  Eastern  Ara- 
maic. It  is  natural  that  the  Aramaic  of  the  Hebrew 
exiles  should  differ  somewhat  from  that  current  about 
them.  If  this  argument  is  pressed,  it  can  only  prove 
that  the  Aramaic  of  Daniel  was  modified  at  a  later  date 
to  conform  to  that  in  common  use,  not  that  the  book 
was  originally  wTitten  in  Palestine. 

D.  The  Hebrew  of  Daniel  is  said  to  be  crude  and 
late  like  that  of  Chronicles  (about  300  B.C.). 

Answer. — This  is  exactly  what  we  would  expect  from 
a  man  who  spent  the  greater  part  of  his  life  at  a  foreign 
court.  Since  however  there  is  no  necessity  for  dating 
the  books  of  Chronicles  later  than  400  B.C.  the  simi- 
larity of  the  Hebrew  in  Daniel  to  that  of  the  Chronicles 
does  not  require  a  date  later  than  Daniel  himself. 

3.  Theological.  The  doctrines  of  angels,  the  judg- 
ment, the  resurrection,  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the 
Messiah  are  much  more  fully  developed  than  in  the 
exilic  or  early  post-exilic  literature  (Hag.  and  Zech.). 
That  of  angels  in  particular  is  said  to  resemble  the  post- 
Biblical  literature  as  seen  in  the  Book  of  Enoch,  which 
belongs  to  the  first  century  before  Christ. 

Answer. — The  weight  of  this  argument  depends  upon 
the  theological  tendency  of  the  writer.  If  it  be  admitted 
that  Daniel  received  these  doctrines  by  revelation,  the 
propriety  of  their  being  given  in  his  time  is  immediately 
seen.  The  severe  afflictions  of  the  Exile  made  the  higlily 
developed  doctrines  peculiarly  appropriate.  Nor  is  the 
doctrine  of  angels  in  Daniel  comparable  to  that  of  the 


DANIEL  327 

post-Biblical  books  in  which  Gabriel  and  Michael  are 
two  of  the  seven  archangels  (Tobit  12:  15).  Although 
no  angels  are  mentioned  by  name  in  the  Old  Testament 
outside  of  Daniel,  Zechariah  makes  a  distinction  of 
rank  among  them.  The  interpreting  angel  of  Zechariah 
(1 :  9,  14,  19  ;  2  :  3  ;  4  :  4-6,  11-14 ;  5  :  5-11 ;  6  :  4-8)  has 
the  same  function  as  Gabriel  in  Daniel  and  is  probably 
identical  with  him  (Dan.  8  :  16-17 ;  9  :  21-22) .  Michael 
is  not  called  an  angel  in  Daniel  but  "  one  of  the  chief 
princes"  (Dan.  10:13,  21;  12:1).  He  is  probably 
the  same  as  the  angel  of  the  Lord  in  Zechariah  3 : 1-3 
(Jude  9). 

4.  Exegetical.  It  is  affirmed  that  the  interest  of  the 
book  culminates  in  the  reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes, 
which  could  hardly  be  the  case  if  the  author  lived  in 
Babylon  four  centuries  earlier.  Accordingly  the  por- 
tions of  the  book  which  refer  to  the  period  of  the  Exile 
are  said  to  rest  upon  reliable  traditions  and  to  have 
been  written  during  the  persecutions  of  Antiochus  in 
order  to  encourage  the  Jews  to  be  faithful  to  Jehovah 
by  the  example  of  the  great  things  which  Jehovah  did 
for  his  faithful  ones  under  similar  circumstances  in 
Babylon.  The  critics  assert  that  Antiochus  is  "  the 
little  horn  "  of  7 :  8,  24-25  as  well  as  8 :  9-12,  23-25  and 
that  the  clearness  of  Daniers  predictions  terminates  with 
him. 

Answer. — The  real  animus  of  this  argument  on  the 
part  of  the  more  radical  critics  is  evidently  to  eliminate 
the  force  of  clear  prediction  as  a  sign  of  the  super- 
natural. But  in  this  they  must  surely  fail.  Even 
though  the  events  of  Daniel's  life  were  calculated  to 
comfort  the  Jews  under  the  dreadful  persecutions  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  even  though  the  Holy  Spirit 


328      OLD    TESTAMENT    I^TEODUCTIOX 

may  have  guided  Daniel  to  record  them  partly  for  this 
purpose,  they  were  composed  in  Babylon  and  not  in 
Palestine.  It  is  natural  that  Daniel's  predictions  in 
the  Exile  should  give  great  prominence  to  the  next  great 
affliction  of  the  Jews  under  a  foreign  tyrant.  Yet  the 
book  does  not  present  to  us  the  history  of  the  Exile  from 
the  standpoint  of  the  time  of  Antiochus  but  the  times 
of  Antiochus  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Exile.  And 
prominent  as  are  those  times  in  Daniel's  prophetic 
view,  they  by  no  means  eclipse  what  to  him  was  beyond 
them. 

The  efforts  of  the  critics  to  exclude  the  Eoman  Empire 
from  the  predictions  of  Daniel  2  and  7  are  forced  and 
unnatural.  The  four  empires  are  the  Assyro-Babylonian, 
the  Medo-Persian,  the  Greek  and  the  Eoman.  The 
second  cannot  be  divided  into  the  Median  and  the 
Persian  for  these  are  always  counted  as  one  in  Daniel 
(5:28;  6:8,  12,  15;  8:20)  as  well  as  in  Esther  (1:3, 
14,  18-19)  and  the  Persian  did  not  have  four  heads  as 
the  third  beast  is  said  to  have  had  (7:6).  Nor  can  the 
Greek  empire  be  divided  into  that  of  Alexander  and 
that  of  his  successors.  Their  kingdoms  are  said  to  be 
inferior  to  his  (8:22)  while  the  fourth  kingdom  is 
said  to  be  "strong  as  iron"  (2:40)  and  that  it  shall 
devour  the  whole  earth  and  shall  tread  it  down  and 
break  it  in  pieces  (7:23).  This  was  not  true  of  the 
kingdom  of  Antiochus  but  was  true  of  the  Eoman 
Empire.  Furthermore  the  two  legs  of  the  image  cor- 
respond remarkably  to  the  Eastern  and  Western  Eoman 
Empires,  and  the  feet  and  toes,  part  of  iron  and  part  of 
clay,  correspond  in  general  to  the  ten  kingdoms  into 
which  the  Eoman  Empire  (2:41-43;  7:23-24)  was 
divided,  which  were  a  mixture  of  Latin  with  other  races. 


DANIEL  329 

Hence  although  ^'  the  little  horn "  in  8 :  9-12,  23-25 
evidently  refers  to  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  "the  little 
horn''  of  7:8,  24-26  does  not  refer  to  him  but  to  an- 
other great  opponent  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  proceed- 
ing from  the  fourth  or  Eoman  rather  than  from  the 
third  or  Greek  kingdom.  This  is  Antichrist  (II  Thess. 
2:3-4,  8-10;  I  John  2:18;  Eev.  13:5-7). 

The  seventy  weeks  of  Dan.  9 :  24-27  are  not  a  mere 
reflection  of  the  seventy  years  of  exile  nor  do  they  end 
with  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  They  extended  from  the 
Exile  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus  and  in- 
clude the  appearance  and  rejection  of  Christ  (Matt. 
24:  15-15). 

There  are  also  certain  positive  arguments  for  the 
genuineness  of  the  looh  of  Daniel. 

1.  The  testimony  of  our  Lord  to  it  (Matt.  24: 15)  is 
most  distinct:  "When  therefore  ye  see  the  abomina- 
tion of  desolation,  which  was  spoken  of  through  (  did  ) 
Daniel  the  prophet,  etc."  This  reference  to  Dan.  9:27; 
11:  31  and  12: 11  does  not  speak  of  Daniel  as  a  book 
but  as  the  author  of  a  book.  The  statement  is  so  explicit 
that  there  are  only  two  alternatives  to  those  who  deny 
that  Daniel  wrote  the  book— either  that  Christ  spoke 
ignorantly  or  that  he  accommodates  himself  to  the 
erroneous  opinion  of  his  day.  How  untenable  both 
of  these  views  are  has  been  shown  in  the  chapter  on  the 
Pentateuch. 

2.  The  testimony  of  Ezekiel  (14:14,  20;  28:3).  In 
the  first  two  verses  Ezekiel  mentions  Daniel,  Noah  and 
Job  as  three  notably  righteous  men,  whose  presence  in  a 
wicked  city  would  nevertheless  not  save  it  from  the 
judgment  of  God.  Prince  and  others  think  that  Ezekiel 
must  here  refer  to  some  other  Daniel,  a  great  patriarch 


330      OLD    TESTAMENT    IXTRODUCTION 

who  was  worthy  to  be  classed  with  Noah  and  Job.  It 
is  however  inconceivable  that  such  a  great  and  well- 
known  character  should  have  been  elsewhere  entirely 
forgotten  by  the  Jews.  It  certainly  is  remarkable  that 
Ezekiel  should  mention  a  living  man,  and  that  a  young 
man,  as  comparable  with  Noah  and  Job,  but  when  we 
remember  that  Ezekiers  ministry  did  not  begin  until 
592  B.C.,  fourteen  years  after  Daniel's  deportation  to 
Babylon,  we  see  that  there  was  abundant  opportunity 
for  Daniel's  reputation  to  be  established  among  the 
exiles.  Daniel  was  possibly  35  years  old  at  the  time 
of  EzekiePs  allusion  to  him.  From  the  high  favor  he 
enjoyed  at  court  and  his  faithfulness  to  Jehovah  he 
must  have  been  viewed  by  the  exiles  as  their  special 
advocate  and  the  personification  of  righteousness. 

The  other  reference  fixes  Daniel's  identity  more 
clearly :  "  Behold  thou  are  wiser  than  Daniel ;  there  is 
no  secret  that  is  hid  from  thee."  It  is  not  claimed  that 
these  references  prove  the  existence  of  the  Book  of 
Daniel.  They  prove  the  existence  of  the  man  who  is 
represented  as  the  author  of  the  book.  The  last  refer- 
ence also  confirms  the  story  of  his  having  been  one  of  the 
wise  men  of  Babylon. 

3.  The  fact  that  Daniel  was  received  into  the  canon 
at  all  is  strong  evidence  against  the  view  of  its  origin 
suggested  by  the  critics.  They  would  have  us  believe 
that  it  was  one  of  the  latest  books  of  the  Old  Testament, 
although  it  purports  to  have  been  written  by  a  character 
who  lived  four  centuries  earlier  and  who  was  so  highly 
respected  that  he  is  mentioned  with  Noah  and  Job.  If 
it  was  so  late,  why  was  it  not  among  the  Antilegomena  ? 
The  time  between  the  alleged  date  of  its  wi'iting  (168 
B.C.)  and  its  alleged  admission  into  the  canon  (130 B.C.) 


DANIEL  331 

is  not  long  enough  to  account  for  its  universal  accept- 
ance. 

4.  The  faithful  representation  of  history  in  Babylon 
is  evidence  that  it  was  composed  there.  Prince  acknowl- 
edges that  Dan.  4:30  is  a  true  reflection  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar's activity  in  building.  That  Darius  as  a  fire- 
worshipper  did  not  order  Daniel  thrown  into  the  fire 
but  into  a  den  of  lions  is  another  incidental  evidence 
of  the  truth  of  the  story.  Indeed  amid  all  the  intricacies 
of  the  history  no  error  has  ever  been  proven  in  the  book. 
This  could  hardly  be  the  case  if  it  was  not  written  until 
168  B.C. 

III.    Unity. 

The  unity  of  the  book  is  now  generally  admitted.  A 
few  critics  however  divide  the  Aramaic  portions  (2:4 
through  chapter  7)  from  the  rest  on  the  ground  of  the 
change  of  language,  while  others  divide  chapters  7-12 
from  1-6  on  account  of  the  change  of  style  and  subject. 

The  book  is  shoA\Ti  to  be  one  by  the  following  con- 
siderations : — 

1.  It  displays  an  evident  plan.  The  image  of  chapter 
2  corresponds  to  the  beasts  of  chapter  7.  The  predic- 
tions of  chapters  7-12  are  represented  as  the  work  of 
Daniel,  the  principal  character  of  chapters  1-6,  and  are 
dated  during  the  reigns  of  the  kings  mentioned  in 
chapters  1-6. 

2.  The  change  in  language  does  not  correspond  to  the 
natural  divisions  of  the  book.  Chapter  1  of  the  his- 
torical portion  is  in  Hebrew  and  chapter  7  of  the  pro- 
phetic portions  in  Aramaic.  The  Aramaic  portion  be- 
gins abruptly  in  the  middle  of  a  story.  No  entirely 
satisfactory  explanation  of  this  has  been  offered.  The 
most  likely  is  that  Daniel  wrote  in  Hebrew  those  portions 


332      OLD    TESTAMEXT    IXTRODUCTIOX 

which  were  of  special  interest  to  the  Jews  and  in  Aramaic 
those  portions  which  relate  to  the  world  empires. 
IV.    Divisions. 

1.  The  history  of  Daniel  under  the  reigns  of  Ne- 
buchadnezzar, Belshazzar,  Darius,  and  Cyrus.  Chap- 
ters 1-6. 

2.  Prophetic  visions  which  Daniel  received  during 
the  reigns  of  Belshazzar,  Darius  and  Cyrus.  Chapters 
7-12. 


II 

EZEA-NEHEMIAH 

(1)  Ezra 

I.  Name.  The  book  was  named  from  its  author 
and  principal  character  N^jllJ  meaning  "help."  In  the 
Septuagint  it  is  called  "Etjdpa^  dsbrepov,  and  in  the  Vul- 
gate Liber  primus  Esdrse.  The  English  form  of  the 
name  follows  the  Hebrew. 

II.  Position. 

The  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  were  often  counted 
as  one  book  in  the  same  manner  as  the  double  books 
(Samuel,  Kings,  and  Chronicles)  and  the  twelve  Minor 
Prophets.  In  token  of  this,  the  Massoretic  notes  con- 
cerning the  number  of  verses  in  each  book  are  placed 
after  Nehemiah,  the  whole  book  is  called  Ezra,  and 
its  middle  verse  is  said  to  be  Neh.  3.  32.  In  modern 
Hebrew  Bibles  however  as  well  as  in  the  Septuagint, 
the  Peshitta,  and  the  Vulgate  the  two  books  are  sepa- 
rated. Origen  speaks  of  them  as  First  and  Second 
Esdras.  Although  the  two  books  are  closely  related, 
the  repetition  of  the  list  of  those  who  returned  from 
the  Exile  (Ezra  2;  Neh.  7:  6-70)  shows  that  they  can- 
not have  been  one  book  originally.  Their  being  counted 
so  may  have  been  in  order  to  make  the  total  number  of 
books  agree  with  the  number  of  letters  in  the  Hebrew 
alphabet  or  because  Nehemiah  continues  the  history 
of  Ezra. 

333 


334      OLD    TESTAMEXT    IXTRODUCTIOX 

In  the  Septuagint  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Xehemiah 
follow  Chronicles,  It  is  possible  that  this  was  the 
original  order  in  the  Hebrew  Bible  since  the  Massoretic 
notes  on  the  Kethubim  stand  not  at  the  end  of  Chronicles 
but  of  Xehemiah,  and  since  Ezra  and  Xehemiah  carry  on 
the  history  from  the  point  where  Chronicles  drops  it. 

III.     Divisions. 

1.  Chaps.  1-6.  Account  of  the  return  of  the  first  com- 
pany of  exiles  under  Zerubbabel  in  536  B.C.  and  their 
rebuilding  the  temple,  based  ujoon  original  documents. 

2.  Chaps.  7-10.  Account  of  Ezra's  going  up  to  Jerusa- 
lem in  458  B.C.  and  the  reforms  he  instituted. 

ly.    Theme. 

The  purpose  of  the  book  was  to  give  a  connected 
popular  history  from  the  priestly  standpoint  of  the  re- 
establishment  of  the  Jews  in  their  land.  This  purpose 
explains  the  silence  of  the  author  concerning  the  whole 
period  from  the  completion  of  the  temple  (516  B.C.) 
till  his  own  journey  to  Jerusalem  (458  B.C.).  The 
only  glimpse  the  Bible  gives  into  this  period  is  from 
the  Book  of  Esther.  It  was  apparently  a  time  of 
spiritual  declension  and  intermarriage  with  the  sur- 
rounding peoples  (Ezra  9:1-4).  Such  a  time  fur- 
nished no  material  for  the  historian  of  the  regeneration 
of  Israel.  While  the  books  of  Haggai  and  Zechariah 
shed  a  side  light  upon  Ezra  1-6,  the  remaining  history 
in  Ezra  and  Xehemiah  has  no  parallel  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. The  canonical  history  appropriately  closes  with 
the  establishment  of  Israel  in  their  land,  as  though 
awaiting  the  coming  of  Christ. 

V.     Authorship  and  Composition. 

The  modern  critical  opinion  is  that  the  book  of  Ezra 
is   a  compilation,   based   partly   on   memoirs   of   Ezra 


EZRA-NEHEMIAH  335 

which  received  its  present  form  probably  by  the  same 
author  as  Chronicles,  a  full  century  after  Ezra.  The 
first  two  verses  of  Ezra  are  the  same  as  the  last  two  of 
Chronicles.  Tbe  portions  in  which  the  pronoun  "  I " 
is  used  (7:  29  through  chapter  9)  are  acknowledged  by 
some  critics  to  be  the  work  of  Ezra  but  those  in  which 
he  is  mentioned  in  the  third  person  (Chap.  1;  3:1  to 
4 :  5 ;  4 :  24  to  5  :  5  ;  6  :  13-22  ;  7  :  1-10  and  chapter  10) 
are  assigned  to  the  compiler.  The  remainder  of  the  book 
consists  of  older  documents. 

The  arguments  for  the  critical  view  are  as  follows: 

1.  Ezra  being  joined  to  Chronicles  on  the  one  hand 
and  Nehemiah  on  the  other,  the  evidences  of  the  later 
production  of  ihese  books  are  thought  to  carry  down 
Ezra  to  a  later  time. 

Answer. — These  evidences  will  be  considered  in  their 
proper  places.  Since  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  are  inde- 
pendent books,  marks  of  a  late  date  in  the  latter  do  not 
prove  the  same  for  the  former.  And  even  if,  as  seems 
possible,  Ezra  and  Chronicles  were  by  the  same  author, 
there  is  nothing  in  either  book  which  precludes  the 
theory  that  that  author  was  Ezra  himself. 

2.  The  change  from  the  first  to  the  third  person  and 
the  mention  of  Ezra  by  name  is  thought  to  have  been 
impossible  if  the  book  was  the  work  of  one  writer. 

Answer. — The  same  change  of  person  is  found  in 
Daniel  whose  integrity  is  almost  universally  admitted. 
One  of  the  passages  where  this  change  of  person  is 
used  is  genealogical  (7:1-10)  and  therefore  Ezra's 
name  is  required,  though  written  by  himself.  Possi- 
bly the  "  I "  passages  are  taken  from  a  journal  made 
at  the  time  (7 :  27-28)  while  the  others  were  added  later 
by  Ezra.     If  so  the  impersonal  style  is  quite  natural. 


336      OLD    TESTAMENT    INTRODUCTION" 

3.  The  remarks  about  Ezra  (7:6,  10)  are  thought 
to  be  strange  if  made  by  himself. 

Ansiver. — They  are  not  more  laudatory  than  those 
of  a  faithful  historian  should  be.  They  are  needed 
to  explain  the  story  and  the  latter  one  exhibits  a 
knowledge  of  Ezra's  thoughts  which  argues  that  he 
wrote  it. 

4.  The  silence  of  the  book  concerning  the  sixty  years 
before  Ezra's  time  is  taken  as  evidence  that  it  was  not 
^Titten  by  him  or  in  his  time. 

Answer. — This  objection  is  met  by  a  consideration  of 
the  purpose  of  the  book  already  stated. 

5.  It  is  said  that  Ezra  would  not  have  placed  the 
section  4:  6-23,  which  refers  to  events  in  the  reigns  of 
Xerxes  (485-465  B.C.)  and  Artaxerxes  (465-425  B.C.) 
where  it  now  stands,  before  the  record  of  events  which 
transpired  under  Darius  (521-485  B.C.). 

Answer. — Like  every  other  historian,  Ezra  finishes 
one  subject  before  going  on  to  the  next,  even  at  the 
expense  of  direct  chronological  sequence.  In  chapter  4 
he  gives  an  account  of  the  movements  to  hinder  the  re- 
establishment  of  Israel  as  far  as  the  time  of  Artaxerxes. 
In  chapter  5  he  goes  back  to  give  the  other  side  of  the 
story,  the  persistence  of  the  Jews  in  their  work,  begin- 
ning with  the  reign  of  Darius. 

6.  The  mention  of  Johanan  (10:6),  probably  the 
same  as  Jonathan  (Neh.  12:10,  22),  the  grandson  of 
Eliashib,  the  high-priest  in  Ezra's  day,  is  said  to  be  a 
sign  of  a  later  author. 

Answer. — Johanan  is  not  mentioned  as  high-priest 
in  Ezra's  time.  As  heir  to  that  office  he  had  a  chamber 
adjoining  the  temple.  Since  a  grandson  of  Eliashib  is 
known  to  have  been  married  in  432  B.C.  (Neh.  13 :  28) 


EZRA-NEHEMIAH  337 

why  may  not  another  grandson  have  been  a  youth  when 
Ezra  wrote   (450-445  B.C.)  ? 

7.  The  title  "king  of  Persia"  (Ezra  1:1  to  2:8; 
3:7;  4:3,  5,  7,  24;  7:1)  is  said  to  indicate  another 
and  later  author.  In  the  "I"  passages  Ezra  speaks 
simply  of  "the  king"  (Ezra  7:27;  8:1,  22,  25,  36) 
as  in  the  documents  quoted  (Ezra  4:8,  etc.).  It  is 
affirmed  that  after  the  conquest  of  Babylon  by  Cyrus, 
his  title  and  that  of  his  successors  was  "King  of 
Babylon,"  "  King  of  the  lands,"  etc. 

Answer. — The  titles  "the  king"  and  "king  of  Persia" 
are  found  together  in  the  same  passage  (Ezra  1:1-2, 
7-8;  7:1,  7)  interchangeably  as  an  Englishman  might 
speak  of  "the  king  of  England"  or  of  "the  king." 
The  title  "king  of  Persia"  occurs  in  a  document  of 
Cyrus  (Ezra  1:2)  and  in  at  least  one  genuine  passage 
of  Ezra  (9:9).  Darius  calls  himself  "  king  of  Persia  " 
in  the  Behistun  inscription.  Thus  there  is  sufficient 
authority  for  it  in  Ezra's  time. 

The  traditional  view,  that  Ezra  wrote  this  entire 
book  is  sustained.  The  Aramaic  documents  are  em- 
bedded in  the  history  and  the  book  displays  a  uniform 
plan  throughout.  It  was  written  during  the  period  of 
adversity  which  preceded  the  arrival  of  ^N'ehemiah.  Since 
the  latter  event  occurred  in  445  B.C.  the  book  may  be 
dated  450-445  B.C. 

VI.     Chronology. 

The  decree  of  Cyrus  allowing  re- 
turn from  the  Exile 536  B.C. 

Cambyses 529-521  B.C. 

Pseudo-Smerdis  (seven  months).  521  B.C. 

Darius  Hystaspis 521-485  B.C. 

Eebuilding  of  the  temple 520-516  B.C. 


338      OLD    TESTAMEXT    IXTKODUCTIOX 

Xerxes  1 485-465  B.C. 

Artaxerxes  I   (Longimanus) 465-4 "25  B.C. 

Ezra's  Mission  to  Jerusalem 45S  B.C. 

Xehemiah  appointed  Governor  of 

Jiidea   445  B.C. 

Xerxes  II  (two  months) 4-25  B.C. 

Sogdianus    (seven  months) 4'25  B.C. 

Darius  II    (Xothus) 424-395  B.C. 


EZRA-NEHEMIAH  339 


(2)  Nehemiah 

I.  Name.  In  modern  editions  of  the  Hebrew  Bible 
the  book  is  named  n^»n^  from  its  alleged  author  (Neh. 
1:1)  and  principal  character,  although  in  ancient  times 
it  was  counted  with  Ezra.  The  name  means  "whom 
Jehovah  hath  comforted."  In  the  Septuagint  it  is 
named  Nesfxia?  and  in  the  Vulgate  Liber  secundus 
Esdrse  or  Liber  Nehemise.  The  English  form  of  the 
name  follows  the  Hebrew. 

II.  Theme.  Though  like  Ezra  written  from  the 
priestly  standpoint,  the  Book  of  Nehemiah  is  more 
secular  than  Ezra.  A  space  of  several  years  intervened 
between  the  last  events  recorded  in  Ezra  and  the  first 
in  Nehemiah.  During  this  time  the  reforms  instituted 
by  Ezra  seem  to  have  been  largely  undone  and  the  people 
of  Jerusalem  to  have  come  under  the  oppression  of 
foreigners.  The  Book  of  Nehemiah  records  his  mission 
from  Shushan  to  Jerusalem  in  445  B.C.,  the  building 
of  the  wall,  the  opposition  he  encountered  from  San- 
ballat  and  Tobijah,  the  reforms  he  instituted,  his  second 
mission  to  Jerusalem  in  433  B.C.,  his  further  reforms 
and  the  census  of  the  princes,  priests,  and  Levites. 

III.     Divisions. 

1.  Chapters  1-7.  The  rebuilding  of  the  walls  and 
the  reforms  instituted  at  Nehemiah's  first  visit. 

2.  Chapters  8-10.  The  public  reading  of  the  Law. 
The  keeping  of  the  feast  of  tabernacles  and  the  covenant 
to  keep  the  Law. 

3.  Chapter    11-13.     Lists    of    princes,    priests    and 


340      OLD    TESTAMENT    mTEODUCTIO]^ 

Levites.    The  reforms  of  Nehemiah  at  liis  second  visit 
in  433  B.C. 

IV.    Authorship  and  Composition. 

The  book  is  considered  by  the  critics  one  with  Ezra 
and  both  are  assigned  to  the  same  author  as  Chronicles 
in  the  beginning  of  the  Greek  period  (333  B.C.).  Like 
Ezra,  Nehemiah  is  considered  a  compilation  based  in 
part  upon  memoirs  of  N'ehemiah  himself.  Neh.  1 : 1 
to  7 :  73  is  admitted  to  be  almost  word  for  word  from 
N'ehemiah,  while  chapters  11,  12  (27-43)  and  13  (1-31) 
are  thought  to  be  slightly  altered  from  I^ehemiah.  The 
remainder  of  the  book  is  assigned  to  a  later  ^\Titer. 

The  arguments  for  the  critical  position  are  as  follows: 

1.  Part  of  the  book  is  in  the  third  person  and  Nehe- 
miah  is  mentioned  (8:1-6  etc.).  Nehemiah  is  called 
the  Tirshatha  (8:9;  10:1)  although  he  calls  himself 
Pehah  (5:14,  18;  12:26). 

Answer, — This  may  be  explained  satisfactorily  in 
the  same  manner  as  in  the  Book  of  Ezra.  The  passages 
in  which  the  third  person  is  used  are  state  documents 
or  such  as  require  the  mention  of  Xehemiah  officially 
by  his  name  and  title.  The  official  Persian  title  Tirsha- 
tha is  found  in  the  more  formal  passages  and  the  com- 
moner Pehah  in  the  more  personal. 

2.  Jaddua,  the  high-priest  in  B.C.  351-331,  who  held 
office  when  Alexander  the  Great  entered  the  city,  is  men- 
tioned (Neh.  12:11,  22). 

Answer. — The  references  to  Jaddua  occur  in  a  cata- 
logue of  priests  and  Levites  which  is  not  an  essential 
part  of  the  book  and  might  have  been  a  later  addition. 
Even  this  conclusion,  however,  is  made  unnecessary  when 
we  see  that  Jaddua  is  not  mentioned  as  holding  the 
office  of  high-priest  at  the  time.     He  was  the  great 


EZEA-NEHEMIAH  341 

grandson  of  Eliasliib,  the  high-priest  in  Nehcmiah's  day. 
Since  ^ehemiah  mentions  a  grandson  of  Eliashib  as 
married  in  his  time  (13:28)  why  may  he  not  have 
lived  to  see  Eliashib's  great-grandson  and  mention  him 
as  an  heir  to  the  priesthood?  This  is  confirmed  by  the 
tradition  that  Jaddua  was  very  old  when  Alexander 
entered  the  city  (332  B.C.).  If  he  were  ninety  at  that 
time,  he  might  have  been  known  to  Nehemiah  through- 
out his  boyhood.  At  any  rate  he  and  the  others  with 
him  are  mentioned  as  living  in  the  days  of  Nehemiah 
and  Ezra  (12:26). 

3.  Darius  the  Persian,  mentioned  in  the  same  verse 
as  Jaddua,  is  thought  from  the  context  to  be  Darius 
Codomannus  (336-332  B.C.)  Neh.  12:22. 

Answer. — Since  this  verse  mentions  Jaddua  not  as 
high-priest  but  as  heir  to  that  office  and  in  his  boyhood, 
the  Darius  is  Darius  Nothus  (424-395  B.C.). 

4.  The  days  of  Nehemiah  are  mentioned  as  far  past 
(Neh.  12:26,  47). 

Answer. — In  each  case  the  expression  "  days  of  N"ehe- 
miah"  is  in  connection  with  that  of  the  days  of  some 
one  before  his  time.  It  is  natural  that  Nehemiah  should 
use  a  similar  expression  concerning  his  own  time  to  that 
which  he  had  used  concerning  the  times  of  his  prede- 
cessors. 

Over  against  these  arguments  for  a  late  date  the 
internal  evidence  strongly  indicates  that  the  book  was 
written  by  Nehemiah.  It  is  headed:  "the  words  of 
Nehemiah,  the  son  of  Hachaliah  "  and  Nehemiah  speaks 
in  the  first  person  many  times.  Its  composition  may 
be  placed  in  the  reign  of  Darius  Nothus  (424-395 
B.C.).    It  was  written  in  the  time  of  Malachi. 


in 

CHEOXICLES 

I.  Name.  These  two  books  were  originally  one.  In 
the  Hebrew  Bibles  the  name  is  D'P'n  nil  meaning  an- 
nals (I  Chron.  2T:24).  In  the  Septnagint  they  are 
separated  and  called  UapaX^'.T.ofihojv  T.pwro>  and  dBorspov. 
This  term  means  ''  omissions  ''  and  is  thought  by  some 
to  refer  to  the  fact  that  these  books  contain  many  things 
not  found  in  Samnel  and  Kings.  The  Vulgate  trans- 
literates this  name  (Liber  primus  Paralipomenon  and 
Liber  secundus  Paralipomenon).  Jerome  however 
translates  D'p'n  nil  by  chronicon — ^hence  the  English 
name  Chronicles.  The  division  into  two  books  was 
introduced  into  the  Hebrew  Bible  in  the  printed  edition 
of  Daniel  Bomberg  (1521  A.D.). 

II.  Theme.  From  the  position  of  the  Books  of 
Chronicles  in  the  Hebrew  canon  and  the  examination  of 
their  contents,  their  main  points  of  distinction  from 
the  Books  of  Samuel  and  Kings  are  clearly  seen.  While 
the  Books  of  Samuel  and  Kings  are  written  from  the 
prophetic  standpoint,  the  Chronicles  are  from  the 
priestly. 

1.  Very  great  prominence  is  given  to  genealogies  as 
was  to  be  expected  from  a  priest.  They  are  carried  back 
into  the  history  covered  by  the  books  before  Samuel. 

2.  In  dealing  with  the  history  of  the  kings  the 
priestly  Chronicler  naturally  omits  the  history  of  Saul 
and  of  the  northern  kingdom,  since  Saul  was  not  of  the 

343 


CHRONICLES  343 

faithful  line  and  since  the  history  of  Israel  furnished 
no  material  for  the  unfolding  of  his  subject,  the  develop- 
ment of  the  true  worship  of  Jehovah  at  Jerusalem.  In 
particular  he  omits  the  history  of  Elijah  and  Elisha 
whose  ministry  was  in  the  northern  kingdom  and  to 
whom  the  prophetic  writer  of  Kings  naturally  gave 
great  prominence  because  they  marked  a  stage  in  the 
development  of  prophetism. 

3.  On  the  other  hand  the  Chronicler  gives  a  fuller 
account  than  Kings  of  all  those  things  which  relate  to 
the  priestly  worship.  Such  are  the.  arrangements  of  the 
Levites  and  the  temple-singers,  David's  preparations  for 
building  the  temple,  the  devotion  of  the  Kings  of  Judah 
to  the  temple  worship,  and  the  relation  of  the  rightful 
kings  of  David's  dynasty  to  the  worship  of  Jehovah  in 
Jerusalem.  Thus  the  Chronicles  furnish  a  history  of 
the  priestly  worship  from  the  death  of  Saul  to  the 
decree  of  Cj-rus,  the  very  point  where  the  Book  of  Ezra 
takes  up  the  history. 

III.  Divisions.  Since  these  books  continue  the  his- 
tory without  a  break  at  the  disruption  of  the  kingdom 
under  Jeroboam,  they  are  properly  divided  into  two 
parts. 

1.  Genealogies,  especially  those  relating  to  the  faith- 
ful tribes  of  Judah,  Benjamin,  and  Levi  from  Adam 
to  the  death  of  Saul  and  Jonathan.    I  Chron.  1-10. 

2.  The  history  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  from  the 
accession  of  David  to  the  decree  of  Cyrus  permitting 
the  rebuilding  of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem.  I  Chron. 
11  to  II  Chron.  36.  The  greater  prominence  given  to 
the  reigns  of  David  and  Solomon  is  due  to  their  special 
activity  concerning  the  worship  of  the  temple. 

IV.  Date   and  Authorship.     According  to  current 


344      OLD    TESTAMENT    IXTEODUCTIO^ 

critical  opinion,  the  Books  of  Chronicles  were  written 
soon  after  the  beginning  of  the  Greek  period  (about 
300  B.C.)  and  by  the  same  author  as  Ezra  and  Nehe- 
miah.    The  arguments  for  this  position  are  as  follows: 

1.  The  genealogy  in  I  Chron.  3 :  17-24  is  said  to  be 
carried  down  to  the  sixth  or  according  to  the  Septuagint 
(which  is  preferred  by  Cornill  and  others)  to  the 
eleventh  generation  after  Zerubbabel.  Thus  it  extends 
several  generations  after  Ezra  and  could  not  have  been 
written  by  him. 

Answer. — The  critics  admit  that  this  is  the  only  his- 
torical evidence  of  a  late  date  in  these  books.  An  ex- 
amination of  the  passage  does  not  warrant  the  conclu- 
sion derived  from  it.  In  this  chapter  the  author  gives 
the  descendants  of  David.  In  verses  19-20  he  mentions 
the  sons  of  Zerubbabel  and  in  verse  21a  the  grandsons 
of  Zerubbabel.  Then  verse  21b  reads :  "  The  sons  of 
Eephaiah,  the  sons  of  Arnan,  the  sons  of  Obadiah,  the 
sons  of  Shecaniah."  'Now  there  is  no  evidence  whatever 
that  these  are  four  successive  generations  after  the 
grandsons  of  Zerubbabel.  The  usual  formula  changes 
after  verse  21a  and  these  four  names  are  added  to  the 
genealogy  out  of  the  chronological  order.  The  argument 
from  the  reading  of  the  Septuagint  need  not  be  consid- 
ered, because  the  evidence  shows  that  the  text  of 
the  Septuagint  is  not  as  reliable,  as  the  Massoretic 
text. 

2.  The  language  of  Chronicles  is  said  to  be  late. 
Ansiver. — True,  but  since  it  is  acknowledged  to  be 

like  the  language  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  the  books  are 
admitted  by  the  critics  to  have  come  from  the  same 
time.    The  time  was  that  of  Ezra  and  Xehemiah. 

3.  Since  the  critics  affirm  that  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 


CHRONICLES  345 

were  written  by  the  Chronicler,  the  arguments  for  a 
later  date  of  these  books  are  applied  also  to  Chronicles, 

Ansiver. — These  arguments  have  been  met  in  their 
proper  place.  Since  they  are  not  sufficient  to  prove  the 
books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  later  than  those  authors^ 
they  cannot  prove  Chronicles  later  than  Ezra. 

The  mention  of  the  Persian  coin  "  darics  "  (I  Chron. 
29 :  7)  shows  that  the  books  were  written  before  the 
beginning  of  the  Greek  period.  Nor  can  this  word 
indicate  a  time  in  the  Persian  period  after  Darius 
Hystaspis  and  so  after  Ezra,  for  Sayce  refers  to  the 
use  of  that  word  under  Nabonidus  and  affirms  that  it 
was  borrowed  by  the  Persians  from  the  Babylonians 
(Introduction  to  Ezra,  Nehemiah  and  Esther  pp.  40- 
41). 

The  traditional  Jewish  view  considered  Ezra  the 
author  of  Chronicles.  While  this  cannot  be  proved,  the 
position  of  the  book  in  the  canon,  the  closing  of  its 
history  at  the  very  point  where  that  of  Ezra  begins  and 
its  style  make  it  possible  if  not  probable.  At  any  rate 
the  date  of  the  book  must  have  been  about  450-425  B.C. 
The  fact  that  Ezra  is  a  continuation  of  it,  seems  to 
indicate  that  Chronicles  was  written  first  and  if  so  about 
450  B.C. 

V.  Sources.  The  Chronicler  makes  extensive  use  of 
the  official  records  of  Israel  as  well  as  of  the  books  of 
the  Pentateuch,  Samuel  and  Kings.  The  extra-canon- 
ical books  referred  to  by  him  are  the  Book  of  Nathan 
the  prophet  (I  Chron.  29:29;  II  Chron.  9:29),  the 
Book  of  Gad  the  seer  (I  Chron.  29:  29),  the  Prophecy 
of  Ahijah  the  Shilonite  (II  Chron.  9:  29),  the  Visions 
of  Iddo  the  seer  (II  Chron.  9:29;  12:15),  the  Book 
of  Shemaiah  the  prophet  (II  Chron.  12:  15),  the  Com- 


346      OLD    TESTAMEXT    IXTEODrCTIOX 

mentary  of  the  prophet  Iddo  (II  Chron.  13:22)  and 
the  comment ar}"  of  the  book  of  the  Kings  (II  Chron. 
24:27).  The  book  of  the  Kings  which  he  possessed 
seems  also  to  have  contained  matter  not  found  in  our 
Book  of  Kings  (I  Chron.  9  : 1 ;  II  Chron.  27  :  7 ;  33 :  18 ; 
36:8). 

VI.  Credibility.  On  account  of  the  alleged  lateness 
of  the  book  and  of  the  sources  referred  to  in  it,  its  evi- 
dent didactic  aim,  its  variations  from  Samuel  and  Kings 
especially  in  the  use  of  larger  numbers,  and  the  improb- 
ability of  some  of  its  independent  statements,  the  Book 
of  Chronicles  is  considered  by  many  critics  a  work  of 
secondary  historical  value,  decidedly  inferior  to  the 
Books  of  Samuel  and  Kings. 

On  the  other  hand  there  are  several  considerations 
which  indicate  the  triistwortliiness  of  these  hool's. 

1.  The  fact  that  he  referred  to  his  authorities  at  all 
shows  that  the  Chronicler  was  not  a  careless  historian. 
This  he  does  more  than  any  other  Old  Testament  writer. 

2.  The  noteworthy  agreement  in  most  particulars 
between  Samuel  and  Kings  on  the  one  hand  and  Chron- 
icles on  the  other  is  evidence  of  the  reliability  of 
Chronicles.  Some  of  the  divergences  may  be  due  to 
textual  errors,  others  can  be  easily  reconciled,  and  the 
remainder  could  be  reconciled  if  our  knowledge  of  the 
full  facts  of  the  history  were  complete.  Since  the 
Chronicler  had  the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings  before 
him  and  held  them  in  high  esteem,  it  is  not  likely  that 
he  would  insert  statements  in  his  book  in  direct  opposi- 
tion to  them. 

3.  The  priestly  tone  and  purpose  of  the  books  no  more 
discredit  them  than  the  prophetic  tone  and  purpose  of 
Samuel  and  Kings  discredit  those  books.     There  is  no 


CHRONICLES  347 

evidence  that  this  purpose  caused  the  Chronicler  to 
misrepresent  the  facts.  Indeed  the  priestly  origin  of 
the  author  confirms  his  statements  on  points  where  a 
priest  would  be  specially  informed  by  Levitical  tradition. 

4.  There  is  a  greater  probability  of  textual  errors  in 
the  numbers  than  in  any  other  elements  of  the  book. 
But  the  same  is  true  of  the  numbers  of  all  other  books 
of  the  Old  Testament.  Errors  of  this  kind  in  the  exist- 
ing text  are  no  evidence  of  general  inaccuracy  in  the 
record. 

5.  As  in  the  Book  of  Daniel  mere  improbabilities  in 
statements  is  certainly  only  a  secondary  argument 
against  the  credibility  of  the  book. 


DATES  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT 
BOOKS 

B.C. 

Pentateuch 1300 

Joshua  1300 

Judges  1050 

Samuel 1035 

Kings Soon  after  586 

Isaiah  758-697 

Jeremiah   627-586 

Ezekiel 593-570 

Hosea ^85-725 

Joel 875-865 

Amos   795-785 

Obadiah 742-726 

Jonah 825-784 

Micah 745-700 

Nahum ^^^ 

Habakkuk    608-600 

Zephaniah    626-621 

Haggai   ^^^ 

Zechariah 520-475 

Malachi    433 

Pgaims     1075-425 

Proverbs  *''/.y.  *.*.*.!! 1000-700 

Job 1000 

Song  of  Solomon 100^ 

349 


DATES    OF    OLD    TESTAMENT    BOOKS' 

B.C. 

Euth 1050 

Lamentations 586 

Ecclesiastes   433 

Esther    Before  425 

Daniel 605-539 

Ezra 450-445 

Nehemiah 420 

Chronicles   450 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


The   Entire  Subject. 

Keil.     Introduction   to   the   Old   Testament.     Edinburgh 
1869. 

Bleeli.    Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament.    Berlin  1870. 

W.  R.  Smith.    The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church. 
New  York  1881. 

Wellhausen.      Prolegomena    to    the    History    of    Israel. 
Edinburgh  1885. 

C.  H.  H.  Wright.     Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament. 
New  York  1891. 

Konig.    Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament.    Bonn  1893. 

Sayce.     Higher  Criticism  and  the  Monuments.    London 
1894. 

Cornill.     Einleitung   in    das   Alte   Testament.     Leipzig 
1896. 

Strack.     Einleitung   in    das   Alte    Testament.     Munich 
1898. 

Kautzsch.     The  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament.     Lon- 
don 1898. 

Baudissin.    Die  Biicher  des  Alten  Testamentes.    Leipzig 
1901. 

Driver.    Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment.    Edinburgh  1902. 

McFadyen.     Old  Testament  Criticism  and  the  Christian 
Church.     New  York  1903. 

Whitelaw.     Old  Testament  Critics.    London  1903. 

General  Introduction. 
Buhl.     Canon   and   Text  of  the   Old   Testament.     Edin- 
burgh 1892. 
Green.     General  Introduction.    New  York  1899. 
Gigot.    General  Introduction.    New  York  1901. 
351 


352     OLD    TESTAME^^T    INTEODUCTION 

1.  The  Canon. 

Reuss.     History  of  the  Canon.    Edinburgh  1887. 

S.    Davidson.     Canon    of    the    Old    Testament.    London 

1876. 
Ryle.     Canon  of  the  Old  Testament.    London  1892. 
Wildeboer.     Origin  of  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament. 

London  1895. 

2.  The  Text. 

Studia  Biblica.    Vol.  III.     Oxford  1891. 

Coppinger.  The  Bible  and  its  Transmission.  London 
1897. 

Ginsburg.  Introduction  to  the  Massoretico-Critical  Edi- 
tion of  the  Hebrew  Bible.     London  1897. 

Kittel.  tJber  die  Notwendigkeit  und  Moglichkeit  Einer 
Neuen  Ausgebe  der  Hebraischen  Bibel.    Leipzig  1902 

3.  The  Semitic  Languages. 

Renan.  Histoire  generale  des  langues  semitiques.  Paris 
1863. 

Fried.  Delitzsch.  Prolegomena  eines  neuen  Hebr-Aram. 
Worterbuchs.    Leipzig  1886. 

W.  Wright.  Comparative  Grammar  of  the  Semitic  Lan- 
guages.    Cambridge  1890. 

Zimmern.  Vergleichende  Grammatik  der  Semitischen 
Sprachen.    Berlin  1898. 

Noldeke.  Die  Semitischen  Sprachen.  Leipzig  1899. 
(Based  upon  the  article  "  Semitic  Languages "  in  the 
Encyclopedia  Britannica.) 

Konig.     Hebraisch  und  Semitisch.     1901. 

The  Pentateuch. 

Green.    The  Pentateuch  Vindicated.    New  York  1863. 

Keil  and  Delitzsch.     Commentary.     Edinburgh  1875. 

Green.     Hebrew  Feasts.     New  York    1885. 

BisselL    The  Pentateuch.    New  York  1885. 

Mosaic   Origin   of   the   Pentateuchal   Codes.    New   York 

1886. 
Kuenen.    The  Hexateuch.    London  1886. 
Briggs.    Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch.    New  York 

1893. 


BIBLIOGEAPHY  353 

RupprecM.  Das  Ratsel  des  Funfbuclies  Mose.  Giitersloh 
1894. 

French  (Editor).    Lex  Mosaica.    London  1894. 

Hommel.  The  Ancient  Hebrew  Tradition.  New  York 
1897. 

W.  Moller.    Are  the  Critics  Right?    New  York  1899. 

Margoliouth.  Lines  of  Defence  of  a  Biblical  Revelation. 
New  York  1902. 

McFadyen.  Messages  of  the  Prophetic  and  Priestly  His- 
torians.   New  York  1901. 

Green.  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch.  New  York 
1902. 

1.  Genesis. 

T.  Lewis  in  Lange's  Commentary.   New  York  1884. 

Delitzsch.    New  Commentary.    New  York  1889. 

Bacon.    The  Genesis  of  Genesis.    Hartford  1892. 

Strack  in  Kurzgefasster  Kommentar.    Munich  1894. 

Dillmann.    Commentary.    Edinburgh  1897. 

Green.    Unity  of  Genesis.    New  York  1897. 

Ryle.    Early  Narratives  of  Genesis.    London  1900. 

Dods  in  Expositor's  Bible.    New  York  1900. 

Mitchell.    The  World  before  Abraham.    New  York  1901. 

Gunkel  in  Hand  Kommentar.    Gottingen  1902. 

2.  Exodus. 

Mead  in  Lange's  Commentary.    New  York  1876. 
Bacon.    Exodus.    Hartford  1894. 
Strack  in  Kurzegefasster  Kommentar.    Munich  1894. 
Chadwick  in  Expositor's  Bible.    New  York  1900. 
Baentsch  in  Hand  Kommentar.    Gottingen  1903. 

3.  Leviticus. 

Bonar.    Commentary.    New  York  1851. 

Kalisch.    Historical  and  Critical  Commentary.    London 

1872. 
Strack  in  Kurzgefasster  Kommentar.    Munich  1894. 
Kellogg  in  Expositor's  Bible.    New  York  1900. 
Baentsch  in  Hand  Kommentar.    Gottingen  1903. 

4.  Numbers. 

Dillmann  in  Kurzgefasstes  Exeg.  Handbuch.  Leipzig  1886. 


354     OLD    TESTAMEXT    IXTRODUCTIOX 

Strack  in  Kurzgefasster  Kommentar.     Munich  1894. 
Watson  in  Expositor's  Bible.     New  York  1900. 
Baentsch  in  Hand  Kommentar.    Gottingen  1903. 
Gray  in  International  Critical  Commentary.    New  York 
1903. 

5.  Deuteronomy. 
Dillmann   in    Kurzgefasstes   Exeg.    Handbuch.     Leipzig 

1886. 
Oettli  in  Kurzgefasster  Kommentar.     Munich  1893. 
Driver    in    International     Critical     Commentary.      New 

York  1895. 
A.  Harper  in  Expositor's  Bible.    New  York  1900. 
Steuernagel  in  Hand  Kommentar.    Gottingen  1900. 

Joshua. 

Keil.    Commentary.    Edinburgh  1857. 
Keil  and  Delitsch.    Edinburgh  1869. 
Maclear  in  Cambridge  Bible.    Cambridge  1880. 
Dillman  in  Kurzgefasstes  Exeg.  Handbuch.    Leipzig  1886. 
Strack  in  Kurzgefasster  Kommentar.    Munich  1894. 
Steuernagel  in  Hand  Kommentar.    Gottingen  1900. 
Blaikie  in  Expositor's  Bible.    New  York  1900. 
McFadyen.     Messages    of    the    Prophetic    and    Priestly 
Historians.    New  York  1901. 

Judges. 

Keil  and  Delitzsch.     Edinburgh  1869. 

Oettli  in  Kurzgefasster  Kommentar.    Munich  1893. 

Moore  in  International  Critical  Commentary.  New  York 
1895. 

Lias  in  Cambridge  Bible.    Cambridge  1896. 

Watson  in  Expositor's  Bible.     New  York  1900. 

McFadyen.  Messages  of  Prophetic  and  Priestly  His- 
torians.   New  York  1901. 

Nowack  in  Hand  Kommentar.    Gottingen  1902. 

Samuel. 

Keil  and  Delitzsch.    Edinburgh  1866. 

Kirkpatrick  in  Cambridge  Bible.    Cambridge  1881. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  355 

Klostermann  in  Kurzgefasster  Kommentar.  Nordlingen 
1887. 

Driver.    Notes  on  the  Text  of  Samuel.    Oxford  1890. 

Edersheim.    Bible  History.     New  York  1894. 

Girdlestone.     Deuterographs.     Oxford  1894. 

Crockett.  Harmony  of  Samuel,  Kings  and  Chronicles. 
New  York  1897. 

H.  P.  Smith  in  International  Critical  Commentary.  New 
York  1899. 

Blaikie  in  Expositor's  Bible.    New  York  1900. 

McFadyen.  Messages  of  the  Prophetic  and  Priestly  His- 
torians.   New  York  1901. 

Nowack  in  Hand  Kommentar.    Gottingen  1902. 

Kings. 

Keil  and  Bertheau.    Commentary.    Edinburgh  1857. 

Klostermann  in  Kurzgefasster  Kommentar.  Nordlingen 
1887. 

Edersheim.    Bible  History.    New  York  1894. 

Girdlestone.    Deuterographs.    Oxford  1894. 

Lumby  in  Cambridge  Bible.    Cambridge  1896. 

Crockett.  Harmony  of  Samuel,  Kings  and  Chronicles. 
New  York  1897. 

Farrar  in  Expositor's  Bible.    New  York  1900. 

Kittel  in  Hand  Kommentar.    Gottingen  1900. 

McFadyen.  Messages  of  the  Prophetic  and  Priestly  His- 
torians.   New  York  1901. 

Burney.  Notes  on  the  Hebrew  Text  of  Kings.  Oxford 
1903. 

Hebrew  Prophecy. 

Fairbairn.    Prophecy.    New  York  1866. 

Hengstenberg.  Christology  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Edinburgh  1868. 

Payne  Smith.  Prophecy  a  Preparation  for  Christ.  Lon- 
don 1869. 

Gloag.    Messianic  Prophecies.    Edinburgh  1879. 

W.  R.  Smith.    The  Prophets  of  Israel.    New  York  1882. 

Edersheim.    Prophecy  and  History.    London  1885. 

Orelli.    Old  Testament  Prophecy.    Edinburgh  1885. 


356     OLD    TESTAMENT    INTEODUCTIOJST 

Briggs.    Messianic  Prophecy.    New  York  1886. 
Delitzsch.    Messianic  Prophecy.    New  York  1891. 
Kirkpatrick.    Doctrine  of  the  Prophets.    London  1892. 
Woods.    The  Hope  of  Israel.    Edinburgh  1896. 
Cornill.    The  Prophets  of  Israel.    Chicago  1897. 
Riehm.    Messianic  Prophecy.    Edinburgh  1900. 
Goodspeed.    Israel's  Messianic  Hope.    New  York  1900. 
Davidson.    Old  Testament  Prophecy.    Edinburgh  1904. 

Isaiah. 

Alexander.    Commentary.    New  York  1846. 

Matthew  Arnold.    Isaiah  40-66.    London  1875. 

Cheyne.    Commentary.    London  1880. 

Sayce.    Times  of  Isaiah.    New  York  (no  date). 

Delitzsch.    Commentary.    New  York  1891. 

Orelli  in  Kurzgefasster  Kommentar.    Munich  1891. 

Kennedy.    Argument  for  Unity  of  Isaiah.    London  1891. 

Douglas.     Isaiah  One  and  His  Book  One.     New  York 

1895. 
Cheyne.    Introduction  to  Book  of  Isaiah.    London  1895. 
Skinner  in  Cambridge  Bible.     Cambridge  1897-8. 
Konig.    Exiles'  Book  of  Consolation.    Edinburgh  1899. 
Sanders  and  Kent.     Messages  of  the  Earlier  Prophets. 

New  York  1899. 
Sanders  and   Kent.     Messages  of  the  Later  Prophets. 

New  York  1899. 
G.  A.  Smith  in  Expositor's  Bible.    New  York  1900. 
Duhm  in  Hand  Kommentar.    Gottingen  1902. 

Jeremiah. 

Keil.    Commentary.    Edinburgh  1873. 

Streane  in  Cambridge  Bible.     Cambridge  1881. 

Orelli.     Commentary.    Edinburgh  1889. 

Orelli  in  Kurzgefasster  Kommentar.    Munich  1891. 

Giesebrecht  in  Hand  Kommentar.     Gottingen  1894. 

Sanders  and  Kent.     Messages  of  the  Earlier  Prophets. 

New  York  1899. 
Ball  in  Expositor's  Bible.    New  York  1900. 

Ezekiel. 

Fairbairn.    Commentary.    Edinburgh  1863. 


BIBLIOGEAPHY  357 

Keil.    Edinburgh  1866. 

Hengstenberg.    Edinburgh  1869. 

Davidson  in  Cambridge  Bible.    Cambridge  1892. 

Orelli  in  Kurzgefasster  Kommentar.     Munich  1896. 

Sanders   and   Kent.     Messages   of   the  Later  Prophets. 

New  York  1899. 
Kraetzschmar  in  Hand  Kommentar.     Gottingen  1900. 
Skinner  in  Expositor's  Bible.    New  York  1900. 

Minor  Prophets. 

Hengstenberg.  Christology  of  the  Old  Testament.  Edin- 
burgh 1861. 

Keil  and  Delitzsch.    Edinburgh  1868. 

Ewald.  The  Prophets  of  the  Old  Testament.  London 
1875. 

Pusey.    New  York  1888. 

Orelli.    Edinburgh  1893. 

Wellhausen.     Die  Kleinen  Propheten.    Berlin  1893. 

Orelli  in  Kurzgefasster  Kommentar.     Munich  1896. 

Nowack  in  Hand  Kommentar.    Gottingen  1897. 

Sanders  and  Kent.  Messages  of  Earlier  Prophets.  New 
York  1899. 

Sanders  and  Kent.  Messages  of  the  Later  Prophets. 
New  York  1899. 

G.  A.  Smith  in  Expositor's  Bible.    New  York  1900. 

Hosea. 

Cheyne  in  Cambridge  Bible.     Cambridge  1884. 
Harper    in    International    Critical    Commentary.      New 
York  1905. 

Joel. 

Credner  Halle  1831. 

Driver  in  Cambridge  Bible.    Cambridge  1897. 

Amos. 

Driver  in  Cambridge  Bible.     Cambridge  1897. 
Harper    in    International    Critical    Commentary.      New 
York  1905. 

Obadiah. 

Perowne  in  Cambridge  Bible.    Cambridge  1898. 


358     OLD    TESTAMEXT    INTEODUCTIOX 

Jonah. 
Kalisch.     Bible  Studies.     London  1878. 
Trumbull.    Jonah  in  Nineveh.    Philadelphia  1892. 
Kennedy.    On  the  Book  of  Jonah.    London  1895. 
Perowne  in  Cambridge  Bible.    Cambridge  1898. 

Micah. 

J.   Taylor.     Massoretic    Text   and   Ancient   Versions   of 

Micah.    London  1891. 
Ch^yne  in  Cambridge  Bible.    Cambridge  1895. 

Nahum,  Habakkuk  and  Zephaniah. 
Davidson  in  Cambridge  Bible.    Cambridge  1896. 

Haggai. 
Perowne  in  Cambridge  Bible.    Cambridge  1897. 

Zecharlah. 
David   Kimchi  (translated  by  A.  McCaul).     London  1837. 
Wright  (Bampton  Lectures  for  1878).    London  1879. 
Rubinkam.     Second  Part  of  Book  of  Zechariah.     Basel 

1892. 
Perowne  in  Cambridge  Bible.    Cambridge  1897. 

Malachi. 
Perowne  in  Cambridge  Bible.    Cambridge  1896. 

Hebrew  Poetry. 

Lowth.    Sacred  Poetry  of  the  Hebrews.    Andover  1829. 

Herder.  The  Spirit  of  Hebrew  Poetry.  Burlington  (Vt.) 
1833. 

I.  Taylor.  The  Spirit  of  the  Hebrew  Poetry.  London 
186L 

Margoliouth.  Poetry  of  the  Hebrew  Pentateuch.  Lon- 
don 1871. 

Ewald  in  Appendix  of  Commentary  on  Psalms.  London 
1881. 

Drysdale.    Early  Bible  Songs.    London  1890. 

Casonowicz.  Paranomasia  in  the  Old  Testament.  Boston 
1894. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  359 

Briggs.     General  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Old 

Testament.    New  York  1899. 
Konig.    Stilistik,  Rhetorik,  Poetic.    1900. 

Psalms. 

Alexander.    Psalms.    New  York  1852. 

Hengstenberg.    Psalms.    Edinburgh  1869. 

Delitzsch.    Psalms.     Edinburgh  1873. 

Fausset.    Studies  in  the  Psalms.    London  1873. 

Ewald.    Psalms.    London  1880. 

Murray.    Origin  and  Growth  of  the  Psalms.    New  York 

1880. 
Spurgeon.     Treasury  of  David.    New  York  1882. 
Ker.    The  Psalms  in  History  and  Biography.    New  York 

1886. 
Van  Dyke.     The  Story  of  the  Psalms.    New  York  1887. 
Cheyne.    The  Book  of  Psalms.    New  York  1888. 
Wm.  Alexander.    Witness  of  the  Psalms  to  Christ  (Bamp- 

ton  Lectures).     London  1890. 
Walsh.    Voices  of  the  Psalms.    New  York  1890. 
Cheyne.     Historical   Origin  and  Religious  Ideas  of  the 

Psalter  (Bampton  Lectures).    London  1891. 
De  Witt.     The  Psalms.     New  York  1891. 
Perowne.    The  Psalms.    London  1892. 
Kirkpatrick  in  Cambridge  Bible.     Cambridge  1897. 
Baethgen  in  Hand  Kommentar.    Gottingen  1897. 
James    Robertson.      The    Poetry    and    Religion    of    the 

Psalms.    New  York  1898. 
Davison.     The  Praises  of  Israel.     London  1898. 
Kessler  in  Kurzgefasster  Kommentar.    Munich  1899. 
Cheyne.    The  Christian  Use  of  the  Psalms.    New  York 

1900. 
Maclaren  in  Expositor's  Bible.    New  York  1900. 
Prothero.    The  Psalms  in  Human  Life.    New  York  1903. 
Cheyne.    The  Book  of  Psalms.    New  York  1904. 

Proverbs. 
Delitzsch.    The  Proverbs.    Edinburgh  1874. 
Cheyne.    Job  and  Solomon.    New  York  1887. 
Davison.     Wisdom    Literature    of    the    Old    Testament. 
London  1894. 


360     OLD    TESTAMENT   INTEODUCTION 

Kent.    The  Wise  Men  of  Ancient  Israel.    Boston  1895. 
Frankenberg  in  Hand  Kommentar.    Gottingen  1898. 
Strack  in  Kurzgefasster  Kommentar.    Munich.  1899. 
Perowne  in  Cambridge  Bible.    Cambridge  1899. 
Toy  in  International  Critical  Commentary.     New  York 

1899. 
Horton  in  Expositor's  Bible.    New  York  1900. 

Job. 

Hengstenberg  In  Commentary  on  Ecclesiastes.  Phila- 
delphia 1860. 

Delitzsch.    Job.    Edinburg  1866. 

Froude.  Short  Studies  on  Great  Subjects  (Series  1) 
New  York  1870. 

Green.    Argument  of  the  Book  of  Job.    New  York  1873. 

Godet  in  Biblical  Studies  on  the  Old  Testament.  London 
1879. 

Davidson  in  Cambridge  Bible.    Cambridge  1884. 

Cheyne.    Job  and  Solomon.    New  York  1887. 

Bradley.    Lectures  on  Job.    Oxford  1887. 

Gilbert.    The  Poetry  of  Job.    Chicago  1889. 

Volck  in  Kurzgefasster  Kommentar.    Nordlingen  1889. 

Budde  in  Hand  Kommentar.    Gottingen  1896. 

Watson  in  Expositor's  Bible.    New  York  1900. 

Genung.    Epic  of  the  Inner  Life.    New  York  1900. 

Song  of  Solomon. 

Ginsburg.    The  Song  of  Songs.    London  1857. 
Hengstenberg  in   Commentary  on  Ecclesiastes.     Phila- 
delphia 1860. 
A.  M.  Stuart.    Song  of  Songs.    London  1877. 
Cheyne.    Job  and  Solomon.    New  York  1887. 
Oettli  in  Kurzgefasster  Kommentar,     Nordlingen  1889. 
Griffis.    The  Lily  among  Thorns.    New  York  1890. 
Delitzsch.    Song  of  Songs.    Edinburgh  1891. 
Siegfried  in  Hand  Kommentar.    Gottingen  1898. 
Adeney  in  Expositor's  Bible.    New  York  1900. 

Ruth. 

Wright.    The  Book  of  Ruth.    London  1864. 

Keil.    Joshua,  Judges,  and  Ruth.    Edinburgh  1875. 


BIBLIOGEAPHY  361 

Oettli  in  Kurzgefasster  Kommentar.     Nordlingen  1889. 
Watson  in  Expositor's  Bible.    New  York  1900. 
Nowack  in  Hand  Kommentar.    Gottingen  1902. 

Lamentations. 

Keil  in  Commentary  on  Jeremiah.    Edinburgh  1874. 
Streane  in  Cambridge  Bible.     Cambridge  1881. 
Ewald  in  Psalms  Vol.  II.    London  1881. 
Oettli  in  Kurzgefasster  Kommentar.    Nordlingen  1889. 
Lohr  in  Hand  Kommentar.    Gottingen  1893. 
Adeney  in  Expositor's  Bible.    New  York  1900. 

Ecclesiastes. 
Hengstenberg.    Commentary.    Philadelphia  1860. 
Ginsburg.    Coheleth.    London  1861. 
Plumptre  in  Cambridge  Bible.    Cambridge  1881. 
Wright.    Donnellan  Lectures.    London  1883. 
Bradley.    Lectures  on  Ecclesiastes.    Oxford  1885. 
Cheyne.    Job  and  Solomon.    New  York  1887. 
Volck  in  Kurzgefasster  Kommentar.    Nordlingen  1889. 
Delitzsch  Commentary.     Edinburgh  1891. 
Siegfried  in  Hand  Kommentar.    Gottingen  1898. 
Cox  in  Expositor's  Bible.    New  York  1900. 

Esther. 
Keil.    Commentary.    Edinburgh  1873. 
Sayce.     Introduction   to    Ezra,   Nehemlah,    and   Esther. 

London  1885. 
Oettli  in  Kurzgefasster  Kommentar.    Nordlingen  1889. 
Haley.    The  Book  of  Esther.    Andover  1895. 
Adeney  in  Expositor's  Bible.    New  York  1900. 
Seigfried  in  Hand  Kommentar.    Gottingen  1901. 

Daniel. 

Stuart.    Commentary.    Boston  1850. 

Tregelles.  Defence  of  the  Authenticity  of  Daniel.  Lon- 
don 1852. 

Fuller.  Essay  on  the  Authenticity  of  Daniel.  Cambridge 
1864. 

Meinhold  in  Kurzgefasster  Kommentar.  Nordlingen 
1889, 


362     OLD    TESTAMENT    IXTEODUCTION 

Pusey.    Daniel  the  Prophet.    New  York  1891. 

Keil.     Commentary.    Edinburgh  1891. 

Bevan.    Short  Commentary  on  Daniel.    Cambridge  1892. 

Behrmann  in  Hand  Kommentar.     Gottingen  1894. 

Kennedy.      The    Book    of   Daniel    from    the    Christian's 

Standpoint.    London  1898. 
Prince.    Commentary.    New  York  1899. 
Farrar  in  Expositor's  Bible.    New  York  1900. 
Driver  in  Cambridge  Bible.    Cambridge  1900. 
Anderson.    Daniel  in  the  Critics'  Den.    New  York  1902. 

Ezra  and  Nehemiah. 

Keil.    Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Esther.    Edinburgh  1873. 
Sayce.      Introduction    to    Ezra,    Nehemiah    and    Esther. 

London  1885. 
Oettli  in  Kurzgefasster  Kommentar.    Nordingen  1889. 
Hunter.    After  the  Exile.    Edinburgh  1890. 
Ryle  in  Cambridge  Bible.    Cambridge  1893. 
Torrey.    The  Composition  and  Historical  Value  of  Ezra 

and  Nehemiah.    Giessen  1896. 
Adeney  in  Expositor's  Bible.    New  York  1900. 
Siegfried  in  Hand  Kommentar.    Gottingen  1901. 

Chronicles. 

Keil.    Chronicles.    Edinburgh  1872. 

Oettli  in  Kurzgefasster  Kommentar.    Nordlingen  1889. 

Girdlestone.    Deuterographs.     Oxford  1894. 

Crockett.     Harmony  of  Samuel,   Kings  and   Chronicles. 

New  York  1897. 
Barnes  in  Cambridge  Bible.    Cambridge  1899. 
Bennett  in  Expositor's  Bible.     New  York  1900 
Kittel  in  Hand  Kommentar.    Gottingen  1902. 


THE  SUNDAY-SCHOOL. 


How  to  Conduct  a  Sund&y  School 

2nd  Edition.     lamo.  Cloth,  net  $1.25.         MARION  LAWRANCE 

General  Secretary  of  the  International  Sunday  School  Association 

"Packed  full  of  useful  information.     Filled  with  details,  specific 

and  practical,  for  which  a  host  of  workers  have  longed  and  prayed. 

The  book  gives  the  cream  of  life-long  experience  and  observation.     In 

its  concrete  details  lies  its  unique    and  practical   service." — The  Ex- 

atniner. 


Pencil  Points  for  Preacher  and  Teacher 

With  an  Introduction  by  Rev.  Robert  S.  McArtliur,  D.D. 
Illustrated.  Cloth,  net  $1.25.  ROBERT  P.  Y.  PIERCE 

Dr.  Pierce  is  the  recognized  exponent  of  the  art  of  conveying 
Scripture  truth  by  means  of  blackboard  sketches  and  object  lessons. 
Crowded  with  illustrations  of  blackboard  drawings  and  suggestions 
and  forms  a  fitting  companion  to  his  popular  book.  "Pictured  Truth." 

Kindergarten  Bible  Stories  oid  Testament. 

Illustrated,  i2mo.  Cloth,  net  $1.25.  By  LAURA  E.  CRAGIN. 

Devoted  to  the  stories  of  which  the  little  folks  never  tire,  but  told 
in  the  inimitable  style  for  vvhich  this  author  has  an  exceptional  gift 
as  well  as  a  peculiar  discernment  in  bringing  out  the  lesson  of  value. 

How  to  Plan  a  Lesson  ^"^  schooi^'iach^rs.^""'^*'' 

2nd  Edition.     i6mo.  Cloth,  net  50c.        MARIANNA  C.  BROWN 

"Suggestive,  interesting,  valuable The  writer  is  an  experienced 

teacher,  who  has  made  proof  of  her  theories,  and  who  is  well  able  to 
make  valuable  suggestions."— i/ffra/^  and  Presbyter 

The  Gist  of  the  Lesson— 1906 

Leather,  net  25c  ( Vest  pocket  size)  R.  A.  TORREY 

Interleaved,  Leather,  net  50c 

The  seventh  annual  issue  of  this  multum  in  parvo  upon  the  Inter- 
national Sunday  School  lessons.  A  most  popular  exposition.  Nearly 
fifty  thousand  copies  sold  annually. 

Practical  S.  S.  Lesson  Commentary  For  1906 

Carefully  prepared  by  specialists  in  the  various  departments  with 
Map  and  Blackboard  exercises.      8to,  Cloth,  50c.  net,  postage  extra. 

Its  practical  value  and  marked  spiritual  expositions  have  given  it 
a  permanent  place.  Fourteenth  Year. 

The  Twentieth  Century  New  Testament 

Final  Revised  Translation  1905. 
Cloth,  net  Ji. 00;  Morocco,  net  ♦1.50;  Morocco,  gilt  edges,  net^a.oo. 
Morocco  Divinity  Circuit,  net  $3.50;  India  Paper  Edition,  net  $500. 
All  criticism  has  how  been  carefully  considered  and  the  results 
embodied  in  the  New  Revised  and  Final  Edition.  This  is  the  product 
of  thirteen  years  labor  by  a  score  of  translators  and  is  practically  a 
■ew  translation. 


IDEALS  OF  LIFE  AND  CONDUCT 


The  Choice  of  the  Highest  §i?njM7n.'  ^''"'^ 

i2mo,  Cloth,  net$i  oo.  REGINALD  J.  CAMPBELL.  M.A. 

"These  messages  to  the  great  audiences  of  men  of  business  are  of 
a  high  level  of  thought  and  expression.  They  are  especially  directed 
to  young  men,  and  present  ideals  of  life  and  conduct  in  winning  ap- 
peals.  Mr.  Campbell  is  a  virile  thinker  with  a  fineness  of  feehng, 
which  makes  him  a  power  in  the  pulpit  which  he  holds.'  —Chrzsizan 
Intelligencer.  ^_^^_^— ^— ™ 

Christianity  as  Taught  by  Christ 

A  series  of  discourses  on  the  teachings  of  Jesus. 
i2mo.  Cloth,  net  S1.25.  HENRY  STILES  BRADLEY 

"Because  he  knows  the  present  conditions  of  New  Testament 
lore  and  is  alert  with  the  spirits  of  modern  life,  Dr.  Bradley's  dis- 
courses possess  a  value  both  unique  and  practical btirnng,  in- 
structive, simple,  easy  to  read  and  easy  to  understand,  appealing  to 
faith  and  inciting  to  practice."— .(4//aw^a  ConstttuUon. 

^.!l^'i^H"lE^"  ,    ,      DAVID  J.  BURRELL 

Dr  BurreU's  sermons  have  a  standard  quality  that  marks  all  of  his 
writing  This  series  of  sermons  is  intended  to  set  out  the  human  side 
of  Jesus'  cliaracter  as  shown  in  his  interviews  with  men,  his  tact,  his 
discernment,  his  delicate  handling  of  people. 

'T'U^    S.^^^^\^   Tit^^a.^      Outline  Studies  in  his  Life, 
The  Apostle   Feter     character  and  Writings. 

i2mo.  Cloth,  net  $1.25.  W.  H.  GRIFFITH  THOMAS 

"An  excellent  example  of  what  Biblical  analysis  should  ^e  and 
should  lead  to.  It  is  scholarly,  logical,  perspicuous,  and  sets  forth  the 
main  truths  of  each  passage  treated  in  a  particularly  exact  and  lum- 
inous way." — Advance.         ^^^_^_^___— .— ^— . 

The  Culture  of  Simplicity  L^i^'fi^rtoniet-' ''''^' 

2nd  Edition.     i2mo.  Cloth,  net  Si.oo.         nALCOLM  J.  McLEOD 

"Ths  first  suspicion  of  imitation  is  quickly  dispelled.  The  book 
stands  on  its  own  merits.  More  vivacious,  more  practical^  for  the 
American  reader  than  Charles  Wagner's  'The  Simple  Life.  It  ex- 
plains  more  clearly  how  the  life  may  be  lived,  and  reaches  the  root  of 
things  in  the  Gospel  of  Q,\ir\%X."—Congregationalist. 

ElimSOf    Life    And  other  sermons, 
i2mo.  Cloth,  net  $1.00.  .    ^        v.       "'v  ^V-^X^F.^ 

"Mr  Jones  is  of  the  general  type  of  thought  with  which  Mr. 
Dawson  of  London  has  made  so  many  American  audiences  familiar. 
In  these  discourses  the  form  is  plain  and  lucid,  the  aim  is  practical.  — 
The  Outlook.     «_»_i.».— — — — — — 

Young  Men  Who  Overcame  _^^ 

x2mo.  C^oth,  net$i.oo.  ROBERT  E.  SPEER 

"These  fifteen  condensed  biographies  exhibit  the  power  arid 
beauty  of  Christian  principle  in  strong  and  active  natures,  who  made 
their  mark  in  whatever  they  undertook— athletics,  scholarship,  busj- 
ness.  Christian  missions.— T.*^  Outlook. 


STUDIES  ON  BIBLICAL  THEMES 


The  Witness  of  Sin  a  Theodicy 

i2mo.  Cloth,  net  $i.oo.  NATHAN  ROBINSON  WOOD 

A  splendidly  thought-out  presentation  of  the  problem  presented 
by  the  presence  of  sin  in  a.  world  dominated  by  God.  Some  sort  of  a 
theodicy,  some  conception  of  the  solution  of  this  question  is  necessary 
to  any  religious  thinking.  Mr.  Wood's  work  is  a  marked  addition  to 
present-day  theology. 

The  Walk,  Conversation  and  Character 
of  Jesus  Christ  Our  Lord 

i2mo,  Cloth,  net  $1.50.  ALEXANDER  WHYTE 

"Rich  and  glowing  meditations  on  the  life  of  our  Lord.  A  genuine 
contribution  to  Christology.  What  distinguishes  it  most  is  the  author's 
singularly  clear  perception  of  Christ  alone  without  sin.  While  always 
in  touch  with  real  life.  Dr.  Whyte  has  that  power  of  separating  himself 
from  the  stream  of  things  which  is  essential  to  a  great  religious 
teacher." — British  Weekly  [Robertson  Nicoll,  Editor.) 

lesus  of  Nazareth,  the  Anointed  of  God 

Or,  The  Inner  History  of -a  Consecrated  Life, 
lamo.  Cloth,  net  7SC.  P.  COOK,  H. A. 

"As  a  brief  and  concise  summary,  a  bird's-eye  view  of  the  life  of 
Jesus  this  volume  will  be  of  value." — Reformed   Church  Messenger. 

The    Divine    Tragedy       a  Drama  of  the  Christ 

i2mo.     Cloth,  net,  $1.00.  PEYTON  H.  HOQE 

The  author's  ambition  is  "to  tell  in  the  most  vivid  and  practical 
form  for  men  living  in  the  world  to-day  the  story  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
in  its  culminating  scenes."  One  could  exhaust  adjectives  in  praise  of 
the  author's  management  of  the  dramatic  form  and  his  blank  verse. 
It  is  a  wonderful  work.  The  dedicatory  poem  alone  is  of  such  sur- 
passing beauty  that  one  will  never  forget  it. 

The  Directory  of  the  Devout  Life 

A  Commentary  on  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
xamo.  Cloth,  net  *i.oo.  F.  B.  MEYER,  M.A. 

"In  many  respects  the  best  writings  Mr.  Meyer  has  issued.  They 
are  eminently  practical,  and  the  pointed  and  pierciag  ideas  of  the 
Master  are  explained  and  brought  home  to  personal  character  and  life 
in  an  illuminating  and  stimulating  way." — Watchman. 

With    the  Sorrowing    a  Pastor's  Handbook. 

i6mo.  Cloth  flex.,  net  75  cts.  Edited  by  F.  W.  PALflER 

Presented  with  confidence  to  pastors,  missionaries  and  other  vis- 
itors in  the  homes  of  sorrow,  as  likely  to  prove  a  most  valuable  aid  in 
their  trying  experiences.  Although  primarily  a  service  book  for 
funerals,  it  is  vastly  more  than  this.  With  Scripture  selections  of  ex- 
ceptional suggestive  values  and  a  collection  of  poems  of  comfort  both 
rare  and  striking  the  little  TOluiae  will  be  greatly  prized. 


IMPORTANT  ESSAYS  AND   ADDRESSES 

The  Universal  Elements  of  the  Christian 
Religion 

lamo,  Cloth,  net  $1.25.  CHARLES  CUTHBERT  HALL 

Amid  the  flood  of  books  on  the  subject  of  religion  there  appears 
every  few  years  one  booK  that  dwarfs  all  others,  one  that  crystalizes 
the  thinking  of  the  Christian  world.  Such  is  this  book.  This  man 
separates  himself  from  the  bewildering  crossed  paths  and  standing 
free,  grasps  clearly  the  course  that  is  being  followed  by  the  Christian 
age  of  which  he  is  a  part.  His  knowledge  is  cosmopolitan  and  accur- 
ate, his  logic  is  clean  cut  and  simple,  and  his  conclusions  convincing 
and  optimistic,  springing  from  a  faith  at  once  simple  and  profound  in 
its  certainty  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Saviour  of  the  world  of  men  who 
are  his  possession. 

Paths  to  Power 

2nd  Edition.     i2mo.  Cloth,  net  $1.25.  F.  W.  GUNSAULUS 

"Not  till  now  has  Dr.  Gunsaulus  put  a  volume  of  his  discourses 
into  print.  On  reading  them  one  is  disposed  to  concede  his  right  to 
the  place  assigned  him  by  Prof.  Wilkinson  in  the  list  with  such  men  as 
Belcher,  Brooks  and  Spurgeon.  Dr.  Gunsaulus  resembles  Dr.  Joseph 
Parker  in  the  vivifying  imagination  which  he  brings  to  the  exposi- 
tion of  his  texts,  and  is  a  master  in  allegorizing  from  them,  fresh 
and  profound  lessons." — The  Outlook. 

Humanity  and  God  ^nd  other  sermons. 

i2mo.  Cloth,  net  #1.50.  SAMUEL  CHADWICK 

"In  every  sermon  the  preacher  looks  at  man  in  the  light  of  God 
and  strives  to  show  that  in  the  visitation  of  God  in  Christ  the  hope  of 
humanity  centres.  The  author  treats  with  great  force  and  freshness 
a  subject  on  which  plain  practical  teaching  is  in  our  own  time  much 
needed." — Methodist  Times. 


Loyalty:  The  Soul  of  Reli^on 

i2mo,  Cloth,  net  ♦x.oo.  J.  G.  K.  McCLURE 

"Dr.  McClure  sets  forth  the  idea  with  a  clearness  not  surpassed  in 
terature,  and  in  a  great  variety  of  illustration,  argument   and  appeal. 
...  a  great  book  to  give  to  a  young  man  of  the  college  type.     It  takes 
him  as  he  is  and  takes  hold  of  best   possibilities  in  him."— iV^.    Y  Ob- 
server. 

Our  Attitude  as  Pastors  irbTrilScUm 

Paper,  net  10c  PROF.  LOUIS  RUFFET 

Aa  addresi  to  the  studentt  of   the  Theological  Seminary  of  the 
Free  Evangelical  Church,  of  Geneva,  Switierland. 


ETURN  CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

0— #^  202  Main  Library                   642-3403 

OAN  PERIOD  1 

2 

3 

5 

6 

LIBRARY  USE 

This  book  is  due  before  closing  time  on  the  lost  date  stamped  below 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

LIBRARY  USE  |0V  111^/^ 

m.,^K  woni 

679 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
RM  NO.  DD6A,  20m,  1  1  /78        BERKELEY   CA  94720 

